Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Coquet Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Borough Market (Southwark) Bill,

Bournemouth Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Brighton and Hove Gas Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Bristol Cattle Market Bill,

Burnley Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Cardiff Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

East Surrey Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,

Leeds Corporation Bill,

Manchester Extension Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Rotherham Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill,

South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill,

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Stockport Corporation Bill,

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and North Eastern Railway (Hull Level Crossings) Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CANADA (MINISTER'S VISIT).

Mr. ALBERY: 1.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now give the House any figures pointing to increased employment having resulted from his recent visit to Canada?

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 3.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to see the increase of trade with Canada, which he foreshadowed after his return from Canada, to materialise and upon what lines?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): One of the object; of my visit to Canada was to stimulate increased interest in British goods in the Dominion. There is already evidence in a number of quarters that my visit is bearing fruit and I am hopeful that with the co-operation of the trading interests concerned there will ultimately be a substantial increase in trade between this country and Canada.

Mr. ALBERY: Have the plans of the right hon. Gentleman for the export of British anthracite coal to Canada made any progress?

Mr. THOMAS: As far as anthracite coal is concerned, the demand is greater than we can meet at this moment. With regard to bituminous coal, negotiations are taking place.

Mr. ALBERY: Are we to understand that the British exports of anthracite coal to Canada have definitely increased?

Mr. THOMAS: Very substantially. I have already said that there are even more orders than we are in a position at this moment to fulfil.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot send anthracite coal at the present time owing to the existing conditions in Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: That is why I said we cannot meet the demands, because no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no Minister can open the St. Lawrence.

REORGANISATION OF INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).

Mr. BRACKEN: 2.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether all the joint stock banks have agreed to participate in the offer of new capital for industry announced by him?

Mr. THOMAS: The position of the joint stock banks in relation to the reorganisation of industry differs somewhat from that of the city interests referred to in the statement which I made at Manchester on the 10th January, but I have every reason to believe that the policy outlined in that statement is generally acceptable to the joint stock banks.

Mr. BRACKEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he really means by City interests? It is very difficult to follow the matter.

Mr. THOMAS: It ought not to be difficult for the hon. Member to follow the position. He knows perfectly well what I mean. I said it quite deliberately, and I also said it in answer to the specific question. I am giving him a specific answer which he knows perfectly well and understands.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise than he has been in his reply to my hon. Friend, who may know of these things, because there are a large number of people in the country, especially in connection with trade and industry, who would like to have more definite informa-
tion, so that they may know how to apply in appropriate quarters in order to get the benefit of the scheme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of this question.

Mr. G. GIBSON: 4.
asked the Lord Privy Seal in what manner and to what extent the City is prepared to assist industry; whether he has formulated any-definite scheme or schemes whereby the textile industry might be assisted by the City; and what form such scheme or schemes will take?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the statement which I made at Manchester on the 10th January, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. As regards the second part of the question, it is for the leaders of any industry to formulate proposals for reorganisation, but I shall, of course, be ready to co-operate. I am already in touch with certain interests in the textile industries. It must, however, be understood that the process of reorganisation in any industry will involve prolonged and delicate negotiations with a number of interests, the course of which it would be undesirable to divulge.

Mr. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the West Riding of Yorkshire there are over 30,000 unemployed in the textile industry, that during the last nine years over 700 firms have gone out of existence, and that not one of the schemes which he has adumbrated in this House is any earthly use to the people in the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry for the latter statement, because it is in conflict with the interests involved. I admit the difficulties which have been mentioned by the hon. Member. Neither my colleagues nor I are responsible. One of the main causes of the difficulty in the whole of Lancashire at the moment, and with which, unfortunately, I have to deal, is over-capitalisation.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Arising out of the first part of the original reply, is the right hon. Gentleman considering, in connection with industries which may be assisted under the special city arrangement, the erection of elevators in various
parts of the country for the reception of the additional wheat from Canada, and, in particular, whether he is considering the city of Nottingham as one of these desirable centres?

Mr. THOMAS: The last place which I would consider desirable for elevators would be Nottingham. Anyone connected with Nottingham should know that. In answer to the first part of the question, I met the millers yesterday, and I understand that I am to meet the wheat pool to-morrow. The whole subject is under review.

Mr. KNIGHT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reasons showing the undesirability of Nottingham, known to the right hon. Gentleman but unknown to this House, will be disclosed in the forthcoming White Paper which he proposes to publish?

Mr. THOMAS: No. I hope that the White Paper will disclose things which are not so obvious. The obvious thing to do is to store the wheat as near as possible to the ports in order to save reloading.

Mr. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite reply to the latter part of my question, in view of the fact that he referred to Lancashire, and my question referred to the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. THOMAS: Broadly speaking, the general principle which applies to Lancashire is applicable to Yorkshire. Negotiations are also taking place in the woollen industry, not similar, but in the same direction as cotton.

Mr. ALBERY: 12.
asked the Lord Privy Seal with reference to the increased financial facilities which are to be given to industry, whether it is proposed in this connection to form a new industrial credit bank or any similar institution?

Mr. THOMAS: As I indicated in reply to questions on a similar subject on Tuesday, 21st January, I cannot at present add anything to the statement which I made at Manchester on 10th January.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does not the Lord Privy Seal think that this House is just as much worthy of his confidence as the Manchester Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. BECKETT: 17.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the negotiations now proceeding with the City and the Bank of England involve any capital or credit to be supplied by the State?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (SCHEMES).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 6.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the gross amount of the schemes for the relief of unemployment submitted in proper form by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board up to the 20th January, 1930, and the total amount approved to date?

Mr. THOMAS: Three schemes, total value of over £2,250,000, have been submitted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Two of these, value nearly £2,000,000, have been approved and notification will be sent to the Board this week. The other scheme has been approved in principle, subject to an examination of detail, which is nearly complete.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea how many men these schemes will employ?

Mr. THOMAS: No, nor can anyone, for the very obvious reason that no one can make a calculation as to the exact amount of steel, navvying, and so on, and any attempt to do so would be merely to mislead the House.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 7.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the gross amount of the various schemes submitted for the relief of unemployment in proper form by the Liverpool Council up to the 20th January, 1930; and the total amount that has been approved to date?

Mr. THOMAS: As the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since 1st June last, road schemes of a total value of £640,000 have been approved in principle by the Ministry of Transport. Miscellaneous works of a total value of about £200,000 have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask what proportion of the total number of schemes submitted by the Liverpool City Council have been approved by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and whether the statement is correct that, in spite of the fact that six weeks have transpired since the schemes were sent up by the Liverpool City Council, nothing has been heard in connection therewith?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer that I gave to the original question is the best answer to that statement.

Following are the detailed figures:

As regards roads, plans and estimates have been submitted to the Ministry of Transport by the Liverpool Council in respect of 18 schemes estimated to cost £640,386. These have been approved in principle and in intimation given that the work may be proceeded with. Formal grants have been issued in respect of two schemes estimated to cost £15,100. Schemes estimated to cost £337,286 are under examination and it is hoped to issue the grants shortly. Details from the council are awaited with respect to the remainder.

The Unemployment Grants Committee have received from the Liverpool Council since the 1st June, 1929, formal applications for grant in respect of 34 schemes estimated to cost £471,700. About two-thirds of these schemes have been submitted since the beginning of December. Three schemes estimated to cost £197,200 have been approved for grant since the 1st June last, but one of these, estimated to cost £194,700, was submitted prior to that date.

I may add that a conference is being held in Liverpool to-day between a representative of the Unemployment Grants Committee and officers of the council, when outstanding schemes will be discussed.

DISTRESSED AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).

Sir K. WOOD: 9.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any progress has been made with the scheme to reduce unemployment by giving inducements to industries to establish themselves in the distressed areas?

Mr. THOMAS: There is nothing which I can usefully add at the present time
to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject on the 26th November last.

Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that the idea has been abandoned?

Mr. THOMAS: No. The idea is not abandoned and ought not to be abandoned. It is not a party question to try to induce an industry to set up an organisation or branch in a distressed area. Therefore, although I have failed so far to induce them, that will not prevent me from pressing the matter.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided what form the inducement is to take?

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his idea was that the State should give financial inducements to these undertakings to go to the necessitous areas? Is not that the idea?

Mr. THOMAS: That is just the reverse of what I said. I distinctly informed the House that it might be possible to do it in a number of ways: First, there was the question of the land to be purchased; and secondly, the question of the rates. My experience has been that, when I had got over both those difficulties and was nearly inducing a firm, there was difficulty about the water supply. All these things must be considered by the firms, but that will not deter me from trying to persuade them.

LIVERPOOL STREET STATION (ELECTRIFICATION).

Sir K. WOOD: 10.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the exact position of the negotiations regarding the scheme for the electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway relating to Liverpool Street Station?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 17th December to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it right to say that this scheme must await the introduction and the passage through this House and the other House of any legislative proposals in relation to London traffic?

Mr. THOMAS: That is not true, but it is true to say that within the next hour the general manager of this railway is to meet the Minister of Transport. I do not know what the result of that discussion will be.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman applied any of his kindly pressure to the London and North Eastern Railway Company to induce them to accelerate their schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member had been negotiating with railway companies for the period that I have, he would not be so optimistic.

CANADIAN COAL TRADE (NEW SHIPS).

Major COLVILLE: 14.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has definite information regarding any ships laid down for the purpose of carrying coal to Canada, consequent on his visit to that country; and, if so, with what firms the orders for these ships have been placed?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject on 19th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us, at the end of last Session, that these orders either had been or would be placed? Can he now tell us what progress has been made with the placing of orders for the building of these ships?

Mr. THOMAS: It is quite true what I said distinctly in the House that, in the judgment of those who were dealing with the business, it would necessitate the building of five new ships. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I stated that in the House. I am now in a position to state that I have had a communication from a firm of shipbuilders who have been asked to tender. In addition, I received a communication yesterday morning dealing with the finance, which was then a matter of negotiation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, seeing that this question is so important from the point of view of unemployment, who are the shipbuilders with whom he is negotiating,
and, when the orders are given for the ships, can he say to what part of the country they are likely to go?

Mr. THOMAS: The House wishes to be fair. Nothing would be more unfair than for me, in a matter of this kind, to indicate or suggest that it was my responsibility to ask a firm to place their contracts anywhere. I told the House distinctly that I have received a communication from a firm of shipbuilders.

Major COLVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that his statement last June in the House regarding these five vessels was misleading?

Mr. THOMAS: It was not made last June. If I had misinformed the House, it would be my duty to say so, and I would have no hesitation in doing so. If at any stage that position is reached in connection with any of my business, I shall have the courage to say so, right away.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original reply, which referred to an answer which he gave to me on a previous occasion, does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the answer he gave me was to refer me to a reply which he had given to somebody else. The reason I have risen is to stop this evasion. We who come from shipbuilding centres want to know exactly what he is doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I want to have a reply, and I think I have as much right to a reply as any other Member of the House.

NORTH-EAST DISTRICT.

Sir NICHOLAS G RATTAN-DOYLE: 15 and 16.
asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) whether he can make any statement as to the progress of his plans for the relief of unemployment as they affect the industrial area of North-East England;
(2) whether he is able to state what number of men are employed, directly or indirectly, as the result of his schemes in Northumberland and Durham?

Mr. THOMAS: The assistance which the Government is offering to schemes for the promotion of economic development and the reduction of unemployment is available for the area referred to equally with other areas suffering from unemployment. The initiative in putting
in hand local works of development lies with the local authorities and public utility undertakings. I shall be pleased to furnish information on such schemes approved for grant if the hon. Member will specify the local authority areas for which he wishes this information. I would remind the hon. Member of the grant recently announced to assist works to the value of £10,000,000 for the development of electricity supply on the North-East coast.

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether, in view of the exceptional amount of unemployment in this particular area, he will direct his energies to putting some schemes into operation with the general plan of relieving unemployment in the area?

Mr. THOMAS: I have publicly announced in this House and outside and invited members of all parties themselves to urge upon local authorities the presentation of schemes. I still want them to do that, and I am glad to say that many have done so. I cannot do more than urge local authorities to present schemes.

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: Yes, but, apart altogether from local authorities and their responsibilities, cannot the right hon. Gentleman initiate schemes?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a discussion on every question.

MOSSLEY, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: 18.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what schemes have been submitted to his Department by the Mossley Council, Lancashire, for the mitigation of the unemployment problem in that particular area?

Mr. THOMAS: No formal application has yet been submitted by the Mossley Town Council to the Unemployment Grants Committee for a grant towards works for the relief of unemployment.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask whether the Department of the Lord Privy Seal has had the same experience which seems to be coming to other hon. Members, that most of these local authorities would like to reconsider the financial help granted by the Department?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be a mistake to convey to local authorities the idea that they will get better terms than under the old situation. I made it quite clear before the House rose that these terms were generous and would not be improved upon. That statement has been justified by the increased number of applications since.

AGED WORKERS.

Sir K. WOOD: 19.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government propose to introduce proposals for the retirement and pension of aged workers from industry?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not in a position to make a statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Is there any foundation for the statement that the Cabinet Committee have now devolved this matter upon the Cabinet Insurance Committee?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not seen any such statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it true?

Mr. THOMAS: I want to see the statement first.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the statement true without reference to anything else?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject I shall be delighted to answer it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether it is still the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the pensioning of aged workers will help to solve the unemployment problem?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting far away from the question on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 22.
asked the Lord Privy Seal, if he is aware of the need for pensions to be granted to persons of 60 years of age and of over 30s. weekly who agree to give up their jobs; and if he intends to legislate in this direction?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on 21st January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman).

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague on the Committee of the Government which
is considering unemployment has stated in this House that the Cabinet Committee have now reported. In view of the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in Glasgow, will he now say what is the position of the Government seeing that members of the Government are now advocating this scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: I had an opportunity of reading the speech to which the hon. Member refers just before I came into the House, and I put it most respectfully to him that it does not quite bear the interpretation he has put upon it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we were told in this House that the Cabinet Committee had reported? Has it reported; and is the statement of the Under-Secretary of State on the question of unemployment, in accord with his own views, and with Cabinet policy?

Mr. THOMAS: The question of the hon. Member is:
To ask the Lord Privy Seal, if he is aware of the need for pensions to be granted to persons of 60 years of age and of over 30s. weekly who agree to give up their jobs; and if he intends to legislate in this direction?
I have answered that, as I have said last week; and I have drawn attention to that answer now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we never going to get an answer? That is no answer at all.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment, at the first available occasion.

WORK SCHEMES.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 20.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the White Paper intended to give information in regard to the Government's schemes of work for the unemployed has yet been completed; and if he will state when it will be issued?

Mr. THOMAS: A further White Paper giving information on schemes of work approved for the relief of unemployment up to the 31st January, will, I hope be issued about the middle of February.

THAMES CATCHMENT AREA (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 21.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is considering any scheme to deal with the annual flooding of the Thames Valley, in view of the fact that such scheme might, while finding work for the unemployed, also benefit the inhabitants?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 18th December to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) in the course of which I stated that limited schemes of drainage for the Wey Valley and the Thames between Wey-bridge and Teddington has been approved. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir A. KNOX: May I ask whether there is any possibility of some general scheme for the Thames Valley being taken into consideration, in view of the fact that this would really provide work for the unemployed and relieve inhabitants of an annual loss?

Mr. THOMAS: I indicated in a previous reply that in my judgment this was an urgent matter. I even invited the authorities concerned, but, as the hon. Member knows, there is a great conflict of interests on this question, and I am putting it no higher than this, that we are doing our best to straighten it up.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is it not the fact that a scheme costing £6,000,000 was laid before the authorities in the Thames Valley by the Thames Conservancy Board, and it was considered inadvisable to proceed with it; and that the scheme to which the right hon. Member referred, the Wey and Thames Rivers, is not part of that scheme. Further, may I ask whether he has been appealed to for assistance?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already stated that I gave approval to the latter scheme, and the statement of the hon. Member confirms my reply to the previous supplementary as to the difficulties involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR INDUSTRY.

Mr. G. GIBSON: 5.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received, in response
to his invitation, a memorandum from the Society of Motor Manufacturers advocating the retention of the McKenna Duties on imported motor cars in order to shelter the home market from unrestricted foreign competition; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. I have received a memorandum from the Society of Motor Manufacturers in which, among a number of other matters, they advocate the retention of the McKenna Duties on imported motor cars. I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any assurance to the motor manufacturers whose representatives saw him, that will enable him to put an end to the uncertainty which now prevails throughout the whole of the industry?

Mr. THOMAS: It is not for me to give an assurance personally, as to the obligation of the Government. I discussed the matter fully with the motor interests and heard their views—and I know their views from the result of the discussion—and I have made the necessary representation on that subject.

Mr. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate why he invited the motor car manufacturers to give him an expression of their opinion if he is not' prepared to put their recommendation into effect?

Mr. ALBERY: 13.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the restrictions proposed on the sale of American cars by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders were the subject of discussion at the conversations which he had with the British motor trade and have his approval?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Sir N. MOORE: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information as to the two new French Tariffs Bills; and whether their effect would be a general increase on French duties upon imported parts of motor cars and an increase on duties upon completed vehicles?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what added burden the increased protective
duties under the new French tariff will have upon British motor cars exported to France?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. Graham): Particulars of the proposed new specific duties on motor car parts were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 16th January, and particulars of those on complete vehicles will appear in the same publication on 30th January. The official explanation of the proposed changes is that owing to the difficulties of estimating the value of motor cars and parts the duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem at present laid down in the tariff has not in fact in all cases been levied. In regard to both parts and complete vehicles the new specific duties purport to be calculated so as to be equivalent to a real ad valorem duty of 45 per cent.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this does not really mean an increase of the duty?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, that is my present information. It is plain at the moment that the effort is rather to make the 45 per cent. ad valorem effective. I do not see any increase of tariff in it.

Mr. HANNON: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any measures are contemplated by the German Government to raise the existing tariffs on motor cars imported into that country or to limit the total number of cars to be imported, with quota appropriation to exporting countries; and if any representations are being made on the matter to the German Foreign Office?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that the German manufacturers concerned have put forward suggestions on the lines indicated in the question, but that these suggestions have not been accepted by the German Government. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, through his representative at Berlin, carefully watch the process of events?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, that is part of our duty. Every week I pay very close attention to all problems of this kind.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the fact that the German Government have not accepted this proposal arise from the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for a tariff truce?

Mr. GRAHAM: It would be difficult for me to connect the two circumstances this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further details, I would rather that he put a question on the Paper.

WORLD TRADE.

Mr. HANNON: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the new volume published by the economic and financial section of the League of Nations secretariat, which reviews world trade during the period 1926 to 1928, where it is shown that the increase in British trade is 6 per cent. below the world average increase; and, seeing that the increase in world average is mainly due to the maintenance of a protective policy in most industrial nations in view of the facts thus revealed, His Majesty's Government contemplate an extension of safeguarding in the interests of enlarged British trade?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not, however, share the view put forward by the hon. Member that world trade is necessarily increased in proportion to the obstacles placed in its way.

Mr. HANNON: Can we produce any facts on any authority that will convince the Government of the sin it is committing against British industry?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is it not a fact that there are none so blind as those who will not see?

TARIFF TRUCE.

Sir JOHN POWER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with regard to the present position in respect of the convention for the prohibition of export and import restrictions?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: A full statement of the position will be found on page 59 of the Board of Trade Journal of 9th January, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire as to the attitude of the principle chambers of commerce and economic groups in France with regard to the proposals for a customs truce?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I see no occasion for such an inquiry.

Major COLVILLE: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any of the Dominion Governments have expressed their views regarding the proposed tariff truce; and, if so, whether these views are favourable to the proposal?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certain statements were made, I understand, by the Governments of India, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa, when communicating to the League of Nations their respective decisions as to participation in the Conference. As the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt be aware, the decisions of the Governments of India and of the Union of South Africa were against participation, and that of the Government of the Irish Free State in favour of it. I understand that the statements which I have mentioned will be published by the League of Nations in due course.

Major COLVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no definite action is taken till after the Imperial Conference this autumn, in view of the fact that this truce might stand in the way of the development of Empire economic policy?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already indicated to the House, in reply to similar questions, that I cannot give any pledge or undertaking, but I do not think that matters would in fact work out in that way.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously intend to proceed with this proposal, in view of the opinions expressed by the Dominions and Colonies?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly. There are either 26 or 28 acceptances from European and other countries, and at the forthcoming Conference at Geneva, whatever may be the difficulties, I intend to do my very best in this matter.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. SMITHERS: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government grants towards the cost of the British Industries Fair will now be discontinued in view of the fair being so successful that the demand of would-be exhibitors is now for 10,000 square feet more space than is available; and what is being done to fix rentals so as to make the Fair self-supporting?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The growing success of the Fair is most satisfactory, and I have been considering what change should be made in the arrangements for financing the publicity campaign in future years. The matter will be referred to the Committee presided over by Lord Chelmsford, which is to consider various questions relating to the Fair.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman see any hope of the Exchequer grant being done away with?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As I have said, that point will be referred to the Committee, and I must await their proposals.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the branch of the Fair held in Birmingham cost the Exchequer nothing?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British trade benefits very considerably as a result of this expenditure?

PILCHARDS (EXPORTS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of pilchards exported from this country in 1928 and 1929; to what countries do they go; and what import duty, if any, these countries put on them?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total quantity of pilchards exported from this country in 1929 was 72,974 cwts., valued at £117,900 (provisional figures). The corresponding figures for 1928 were 52,854 cwts., valued at £87,401. About 95 per cent. of these quantities went to Italy and the greater part of the remainder to the United States of America. The import duty on pilchards imposed by Italy is equivalent to about 1s. 7d. per cwt. gross, and that imposed by the United States of America, to about 4s. 8d. per cwt. net.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINENTAL PORTS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that preferential railway rates are being given to goods from the Rhine provinces to the port of Bremen by the German State railways; that this is diverting a considerable amount of traffic from the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and is thereby detrimental to British-owned shipping, who use the latter ports and are debarred from using the port of Bremen; and whether, in view of existing trade agreements between Great Britain and Germany, he will inquire into this matter with a view to making representations?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The German State Railways have for many years given in respect of goods sent to German ports preferential rates over goods sent to Dutch ports. I am advised that this practice is not contrary to Germany's existing treaty obligations. As British shipping can trade with Bremen as freely as with Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a considerable amount of trade with Bremen is at present carried by British ships, I am not clear what detriment to British shipping the hon. Member has in mind, but perhaps he will give me particulars.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increase in the subsidy on goods carried on the State railways has been made recently as against goods carried on the waterway of the Rhine, and that it has had a very detrimental effect on the shipping of the Humber ports?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have no details in relation to that point, but, even if the facts were as represented by the hon. Member, I should still doubt whether I had any power of representation. There is nothing in that inconsistent with the Treaty obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

FABRIC GLOVES.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the numbers employed in the fabric glove industry in May, 1929, and December, 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: According to particulars furnished by the Joint Industrial Council for the Glove-making Industry, in respect of firms which, in 1924, employed about 82 per cent. of the cutters in the fabric glove industry the average number of workpeople, including outworkers, employed by these firms was 1,295 in May, 1929, and 1,183 in December, 1929.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the reason for the decrease the uncertainty that overhangs this industry at the present time?

LACE AND CUTLERY.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: 24 and 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has received a resolution, unanimously adopted by 14 trade unions and the employers' associations concerned in the Nottingham lace industry, expressing apprehension as to the possibility of the safeguarding duty lapsing in July, 1930, and urging that, in the interests of employment, the duty should be maintained until the fullest possible inquiries as to the operation of the duty have been made; if so, whether these representations have received the consideration of His Majesty's Government; and what reply has been made to them;
(2) whether he has received joint representations from employers and workers in the cutlery trade in Sheffield requesting that they should be allowed to place before him information in regard to the improved conditions of employment and production in the industry since the imposition of a safeguarding duty; whether he has agreed to receive such a deputation; and, if so, whether he will make available the information submitted to him?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The reply to the first part of both questions is in the affirmative. As was pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 19th December, the policy of the Government in relation to the safeguarding duties is well known, and I fear no useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation such as is suggested.

Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this joint request
from the trade unions and the employers asked that a Committee should be set up to inquire into the actual results, as promised by the Balfour Committee, and is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to receive a deputation as mentioned in the second question, in view of the fact that it comes from employer and employed and that his right hon. Colleague has received a purely party committee?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have replied to many questions by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point. I am always willing to meet deputations, but in this case the Government have definitely declared its policy, and to receive deputations in these circumstances would, I suggest, be a waste of time.

Sir H. CROFT: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on every single question.

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. These two questions were answered together by my consent, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. I have been allowed to ask only one supplementary question, and this is a matter affecting the whole of the trade unions in these industries.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has received an extremely definite answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. EDE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say how-many fatal accidents to the members of the crews of British ships took place during the last year for which statistics are available, distinguishing between those in home and foreign waters, respectively; and in how many cases the findings of a court of inquiry indicated that the blame was not attributable to the deceased person?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the year ended 31st December, 1928, 356 members of the crews of British ships lost their lives as the result of accidents, other than shipping casualties. Of these, 93 deaths occurred on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom, and 263 occurred elsewhere. In 99 cases the death was the
subject of an inquest, and in the remaining 257 cases the death was the subject of inquiry and report by the Superintendent of a Mercantile Marine Office, a Consular Officer, or an Officer in a British Dominion or Colony. It appears from the information available that in at least 304 instances no blame was attributable to the deceased person.

Mr. TINNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these accidents was due to confusion as to helm orders?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is the subject of another question. I have already indicated to the House that there will be ample opportunity for discussion in this Chamber long before that becomes law.

FOREIGN CAPTAINS AND OFFICERS.

Mr. HANNON: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the practice of employing foreign captains and officers in British ships trading between foreign ports, having regard to the serious unemployment which exists in the mercantile marine, he will introduce legislation to make such practice illegal?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I fear that nothing can be added to the reply given on the 17th December to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

HELM ORDERS.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position with regard to the suggested change in respect of helm orders?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The position in this matter remains as stated in the reply which I gave the hon. Member on the 10th December last.

STEAM DRIFTERS (HEAD-LIGHTS).

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that danger and inconvenience are caused to steam drifters by the regulation which requires these boats to have head-lights on their foremasts when steaming; and whether he will consider the possibility of permitting the lights to be affixed to the mizzen masts so that the fore-masts may be lowered?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This question is governed by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Article 2 of which provides that the masthead light must be carried "on or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without a foremast then in the fore part of the vessel." These Regulations can only be altered by international agreement, and I am advised that there is not sufficient ground for suggesting an alteration in the sense proposed by the hon. Member.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen are strongly of opinion that this regulation is very dangerous indeed?

Mr. GRAHAM: My information at the moment is that there is a division of opinion on the point, but in any case the essential part of the reply is the point relating to international agreement. I am very willing to make further inquiries, if the hon. and gallant Member wishes to bring further information to my notice.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is no foremast when it is lowered?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. SMITHERS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the cost of running the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts has already involved British nationals in a personal private expenditure of £2,250,000, he will now discharge all individual balances of less than £50 each on outstanding accepted Anglo-Hungarian claims, subject to a special deduction as discount on the dividend of 4s. 2d. in the £ thus anticipated, and thereby hasten the disbandment of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts to prevent further expenditure?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Administrator of Hungarian Property has no power to give preference to one class of creditor over others. I would remind the hon. Member that the commission deducted by the Clearing Office from payments to British claimants, represents less than 2¼ per cent. of the total cash payments, and that without the intermediary of the
Clearing Office it would not have been possible to recover a large proportion of these moneys.

Mr. SMITHERS: On the general question can the President of the Board of Trade tell us when he expects that the Clearing Office will be closed?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I have already been asked questions on that subject. The staff is diminishing, and the work is being wound up, but no one can give the definite date asked for.

STATIONERY OFFICE.

The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of MR. NAYLOR:
59. "To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the applicants for employment at His Majesty's Stationery Office Works, Wealdstone, have been requested to give replies, on an official form, to a series of 50 questions with regard to their parentage, service in the forces, physical activity, height and weight, health, vaccination record, and character, concluding with a declaration that the assurances given are true; whether he is aware that the men applying for work resent the signing of such a form as a condition of engagement; and whether he will take steps to simplify the procedure in this respect, in consultation with the trade unions concerned?

Mr. NAYLOR: On a point of Order. I find that substantial alteration has been made in this question since I handed it in at the Table, and I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. Members are not entitled to claim the right to be consulted before such alterations are made?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, as far as I understand the point, has had his question summarised slightly.

Mr. NAYLOR: I am quite prepared to admit that my question has been altered, but something has been taken out of it that I wanted to appear, and I therefore ask you whether, whatever the alteration may be, a Member is not entitled to be consulted before his question is altered?

Mr. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, I think an hon. Member is entitled to be consulted before a question is altered. If there is any substantial alteration and the hon. Member objects, he can put his question down for another day.

Mr. NAYLOR: I will ask it now.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The form referred to contains questions which Departments are required to ask of applicants for unestablished employment. The particulars demanded are the same in all Departments in which a medical examination is not required. In regard to the last part of the question, facilities are available through the machinery of the Industrial Whitley Council for the consideration of any suggestions which may be made on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT AND BREAD PRICES.

Major CHURCH: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the prices of home-grown and imported wheat in Great Britain, France and Germany?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: With my hon. Friend's permission, I propose to circulate a statement of these prices in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following statement shows the published prices of home-grown and imported wheat in Great Britain, France and Germany in the week ended 11th January. I am, however, unable to say how closely the figures for the three countries are comparable:



Prices quoted converted into shillings per cwt.



s.
d.


Home-grown Wheat:




English "Gazette Average"
9
7


Paris
11
3¾


Berlin
12
3¾


Imported Wheat:




The prices of imported wheat given below are exclusive of duty and other charges; the duties on wheat imported into France and Germany amount to 4s. 1¼d. per cwt. and 3s. 2¾d. per cwt., respectively, taking the exchanges at the par rates:




London price, Northern Manitoba wheat (No. 2 description), ex ship
12
3¾


Paris price, Manitoba wheat (No. 2 description), c.i.f., January shipments
12
5¼


Hamburg price, Manitoba wheat (No. 1 description), c.i.f., based on shipments afloat
12
7¼

Mr. LAMBERT: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the price of wheat and the price of the four-pound loaf in January, 1914, and January, 1930, respectively; and what would be the cost of the four-pound loaf in 1930, presuming the cost of milling wheat and the baking and distribution of bread were the same as in 1913?

—
Mid-Jan.* 1913.
Mid-Jan. 1914.
Mid-Jan. 1930.



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


English wheat "Gazette Average" per cwt
7
1
7
3
9
7


Northern Manitoba Wheat (No. 2 description) ex ship, London (per 496 lbs.)
38
0
35
0
53
0


Argentine wheat (Rosafe) Spot, Liverpool (per 100 lbs.)
7
4
No quotation.
9
0½


4-lb loaf (average price for the United Kingdom)
0
5¾
0
5¾
0
9


* The date given in the original Notice of the question.

The increased cost of the four-pound loaf in 1930, assuming that the only difference as compared with 1913 was the increased cost of the wheat used, may, on the basis of the above figures, be estimated as between 1d. and 1½d.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been made to him regarding the alleged necessity for amendments to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, particularly in regard to quota requirements; and whether the Government contemplate introducing any amending legislation on this subject?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have received representations in regard to the amendment of the Act in certain directions, but I can hold out no hope of fresh legislation in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST PROTECTION BILL.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Coast Protection Bill?

Viscount ELMLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if any decision has been reached as to whether the Coast Protection Bill will be proceeded with; and, if so, when the Money Resolution will be taken?

Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer necessarily contains a number of figures I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The prices of three representative kinds of wheat and of the four-pound loaf in January, 1913, and January, 1930, were as follows:

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I regret that I can add nothing to the replies which I gave on this subject on the 21st January. No change has taken place.

Viscount ELMLEY: Cannot the Prime Minister say when the Government are going to make up their mind upon this point?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have made up their mind. At the beginning of the Session the Government produced a Bill, and informed the House when the Bill was introduced that, if it was to go through, it had to be treated as practically a non-contentious Bill. That has not happened.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not that answer mean that it is not going through?

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the general desire on the part of the people of Wales for a measure of national autonomy, the Government are prepared to introduce at an early date the necessary legislation for the creation of a separate legislative assembly for Wales with autonomous powers in matters of local concern or, if such a course is not regarded as feasible, whether the Government will consider the possibility of affording facilities for the passage of legislation to give Wales the same
advantages and privileges as Scotland enjoys in the matter of separate administration?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestions.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Having regard to the statement in the manifesto of the Labour party before the Election, to the effect that Labour supported the creation of separate legislative assemblies for Scotland, Wales and England—

HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the congestion of business in this House and in view of the claims of Wales to a special department of its own at the seat of government, he will consider at any early date initiating the necessary legislation to create a Secretary for Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is it not the view of the right hon. Gentleman, as one who represented a Welsh constituency in this House for many years, that Wales has undeniable claims to a Department of its own here?

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentlemen realise the disappointment that will be caused to the whole House if we cannot have Welsh days in the same way as we have Scottish days now?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SILK DUTY.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of drawback that has been paid on the export of silk tissues during 1928?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The net amount of drawback paid during the year ended 31st December, 1928, in respect of silk and artificial silk tissues exported, including tissues used in the manufacture of British made-up articles exported, was £1,326,905.

LAND VALUES (TAXATION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to deal with the taxation of land values?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the Budget statement.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not this one of the Bills which is going to be thrown overboard by the Socialist party?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware that there was any promise to introduce a Bill at all on this question.

NATIONAL INCOME.

Major NATHAN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to state the approximate amount of the national income for each of the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, and the figures on a comparable basis for 1900 and 1913?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I regret that no official estimates are available for these years.

Major NATHAN: May I respectfully ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the advisability of submitting this matter to the Economic Advisory Council?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The only official figures available are based upon returns of 1924. These have not yet been officially published, but a paper was recently react before the Royal Statistical Society based upon these figures which gave as the national income in 1924, after making allowance for possible errors to the extent of £225,000,000, an estimate of just under £4,000,000,000.

Mr. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement that the national income has doubled?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that we have an income of £4,000,000,000, why can we not afford £l per week for the unemployed?

PENSIONS (COST).

Mr. TINKER: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions and the annual cost?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: At 31st December, 1929, 1,935,700 persons were in receipt of old age pensions, either under the Old Age Pensions Acts 1908–24 or under the Contributory Scheme, at an annual cost of £50,200,000.

Mr. TINKER: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual cost to the Treasury if pensions of 25s. a week were paid to all persons at the age of 60?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The total cost of a pension of 25s. a week to all persons over 60 years of age is estimated at £330,000,000 in 1930, rising to £495,000,000 in 1960, and to £550,000,000 in 1980. The charge additional to the estimated cost of pensions under existing legislation, with allowance for the loss which would result from the necessary revision of contribution conditions, would be about £285,000,000 in 1930, rising to roughly £480,000,000 by 1980.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is that the figure for the whole population, or only for wage-earners engaged in industry?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The whole population.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of that reply—which hon. Members opposite are laughing at because of the great amount involved—is it not the case that it represents only 10 per cent. of the income of the country? [Laughter.] You are a lot of duds!

HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to announce the Government's policy in regard to the National Debt?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have already stated the Government's policy in my reply of the 28th November last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have suppressed or swallowed the opinion of the Secretary of State for War?

TAXATION.

Sir W. DAVISON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that taxation in this country in 1928 was approximately 58 per cent.
higher than in France, 100 per cent. higher than in Germany, and 250 per cent. higher than in the United States; and what action he proposes to take to reduce this handicap on British industry, especially as intimation has recently been given by the Governments of the States mentioned that further large remissions of taxation will be granted during the current year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member has evidently taken the figures in his question from a recent newspaper article, but has not exercised the due caution against exaggerated deductions which the article advised. Comparisons of taxation per head in different countries are apt to give a misleading impression, as the figures are not always compiled on a comparable basis nor do they take account of national income and other relevant considerations. In regard to the last part of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Assuming that certain allowances have to be made, are not the figures substantially correct; and is the right hon. Gentleman alive to the serious handicap on British industry of these heavy charges in this country as compared with the charges in foreign countries?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am perfectly well aware of it, but my immediate concern is to find the means of paying the unpaid bills left by my predecessors.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (PRICES).

Mr. MANSFIELD: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the appointment of a commission to investigate the cause of the difference at present existing between the price of coal sold at the pit-head and the price paid by domestic consumers?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This matter is being borne in mind in considering the powers and duties of the proposed Consumers' Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: On a point of Order. Before the questions are finally disposed of, may I say that I handed in at the Table a question
addressed to the President of the Board of Trade? It is now appearing on the Order Paper as No. 105, addressed to the Secretary for Mines. I suggest that this question was essentially one for the Board of Trade and that it should not have been so transferred to the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Departments concerned.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: I ask, for my guidance and the guidance of the House, whether you know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question essentially for the Board of Trade?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me to decide. It is for the Department to say whether or not it will answer a question.

MOCK AUCTIONS.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to auctioneers and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions and rigged sales.
I have moved a similar Motion to this on two previous occasions, and on both occasions I received the permission of the House to introduce the Bill, hut, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I was not able to get either Bill on to the Statute Book. I suggest that hon. Members opposite should give me their whole-hearted support for this particular Measure, because at any rate it will offer some protection to the working classes of this country, who have been swindled on many occasions by those people who hold mock auctions. I need not explain at great length the methods that these gentlemen employ, because I am certain that there are many hon. Members in this House who have seen these gentlemen operating their so-called trade, and no doubt many hon. Members have been swindled themselves by them. In the main streets of the great cities of this country, and particularly in the holiday resorts, these gentlemen carry on this form of swindle and can be seen at any part of the year. Their methods are to offer imitation, fictitious articles, got up in a very flashy way to represent something better, and to induce people to pay very big prices
for them. They practise also the thing known as ringing the changes, which I imagine is not unknown to politicians in another sense, and they keep in the crowd confederates who urge the people to go and buy. They practise various systems of pretending to return the money, which they fail to do. It is well known that these people are frauds, and it is felt by many people that they ought to be dealt with more stringently than the law at the present moment allows.
There are three ways in which this is a great evil to the country: it robs the purchaser, it lowers the reputation of any trading centre where these gentlemen set up their business, and it diverts trade from the legitimate trader. I urge on behalf of the trading community that something should be done to stop this great evil. Again, it degrades the status of the very honourable profession of auctioneers. Auctioneers who are carrying on their profession in a proper and honourable way are desirous that something should be done to stop this evil, and the Secretary of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers, Mr. John Stevenson, has from time to time done all he can to mitigate the evil on behalf of the people whom he represents. He has taken actions under the common law and has succeeded in a few cases, but, as the law stands, he is not able, nor is anyone, able to deal with these gentlemen in the way in which they ought to be dealt with. The Chief Constables of many cities have expressed the hope that a Measure such as this will be passed to strengthen their hands.
This Bill also seeks to deal with the question of rigged sales. I do not know whether hon. Members are so well acquainted with that type of auction. A large country house is taken, and stocked with antiques of all kinds, with furniture that is supposed to be of value which it is not, and with pictures that are supposed to be genuine but which are not, and the property is advertised as if it were that of the people who had lived in the house—probably people whose names are well-known, and who have a reputation for being judges in these matters. The house is stocked with this class of goods, and under the guise that they are the contents of the residence of Mr. So-and-so, they are sold to the public and fetch high prices. I know
something about the class of things that are sent to these places, because some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting a certain antique factory in the east end of London. I saw some beautiful old Sheffield plate being made, and saw that it was quite easy to make antiques, Sheffield plate and glass in such a way that only an expert can distinguish it from the genuine. The object of these people in running these sales is to catch the unwary and to get big prices. Of course, the people do not understand the articles that they are buying, and because of the good name at the top of the bill, believe that they are genuine.
It has been argued that the present law is strong enough to deal with this matter, but it is not. Just recently a case was put up to the Public Prosecutor to test this very point. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to accord his support to this Bill, because it has now been proved conclusively that the law is not strong enough to deal with this matter. The Bill seeks to inflict penalties for offences, and to cancel the licence of an auctioneer or any man who is found guilty of carrying on these malpractices. It has the support of many organisations throughout the country, including the National Chamber of Trade, the Auctioncers' Institute, the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Scottish Association of Watchmakers and Jewellers, and the London and Suburban Traders' Federation. It is backed by hon. Members from all sides, and I hope that it will receive the assent of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Womersley, Mr. Alpass, Mr. Harbord, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Matters, Sir Cooper Rawson, and Lieut. -Colonel Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White.

MOCK AUCTIONS BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to auctioneers and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions and rigged sales," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.

Order for committal [27th January] read, and discharged: Bill to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

COAL MINES [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for regulating and facilitating the production, supply, and said of coal by owners of coal mines, for the temporary amendment of Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, for the constitution and functions of a Coal Mines National industrial Board, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying—

(a) such remuneration (if any) to the chairmen of the committees of investigation constituted by the said Act, such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairmen and members of those committees, such remuneration to the secretaries to those committees and such remuneration to accountants, officers, and servants employed by those committees, and such other expenses of those committees, as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(b) such remuneration (if any) to the chairman of the Coal Mines National Industrial Board to be constituted under the said Act, such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman and members of that Board, such remuneration to the secretary of that Board, and such other expenses of that Board as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(c) such remuneration to the members of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission constituted by the said Act, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of that Commission, and such other expenses of that Commission as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(d) such remuneration as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to such technical and professional agent "as may be employed by the said Commission for the discharge of the functions of the Commission under the said Act, so, however, that a sum equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the employment of such agents as aforesaid for the purpose of promoting or assisting the amalgamation of any undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines shall, in the event of the undertakings being amalgamated, be repaid to the Board of Trade by the owners of the amalgamated undertaking."—(King's Recommendation to be signified.)—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

4.0 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): In asking for the approval of the Committee for this Financial Resolution dealing with the Coal Mines Bill which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I think it is the accepted practice that on an occasion like this we should simply explain what is required in the financial provisions for the various parts of the Bill without in any way embarking on the merits of the proposal. Therefore, this afternoon, in the briefest and, I hope, clearest possible fashion, I may be allowed to give a summary of the two or three heads under which this expenditure will be incurred. The Committee will remember that in Part I of the Bill there is provision for setting up district schemes regulating production and pithead disposal of coal, and in connection with these schemes covering the 21 wages ascertainment districts in this country there are also provisions in the Bill providing for the appointment of committees of investigation. That part of the Bill is designed to protect the interests of consumers. In the 21 districts these committees will be small, consisting of five people, including an independent chairman, a representative of the owners and a representative of the miners, and two for the consumers. In addition to the investigation committees in the 21 wages ascertainment districts, there will be a national committee corresponding to the national machinery established by the owners. So that for practical purposes we get 22 committees under that part of the Bill.
In the Second Schedule to the Bill power is taken to amalgamate the districts, and I have not the least doubt that if the provisions of Part I are substantially approved, the districts will, in fact, for this purpose be amalgamated from time to time, and the financial provision which has been made tinder this part of the legislation may be corresponding reduced. In addition to that, no one can say this afternoon to what extent the work of these committees will be necessary, but the Committee will know that they are empowered to direct their attention either to the provisions of a scheme, that is, the structure of a scheme as set up by the district, or, what
may be very much more likely the case, any abuse or irregularity, or, as it may be regarded, injustice to the public under the scheme, which, nine times out of ten, in my opinion, would be a problem of price. So that this part of the expenditure is governed, first of all, by the number of such committees (together with the national committee) which may be necessary, the extent to which these committees will be amalgamated and the extent to which they are used; but, in substance, we think not more than say £33,000 per annum will be required for this part of the Bill.
The next part of the expenditure, and a very much smaller part, under that heading is attributable to the National Industrial Board which it is proposed to set up for the consideration of disputes arising either as regards hours of work, wages or conditions of employment in the mining industry. The Committee will observe that in terms of the Bill that Board will consist of six representatives of the owners, six representatives of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and four representatives of consumers, two from the side of industry, the Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, and the Confederation of Employers, two from the Trade Union Congress and the Co-operative Union, with an independent chairman. But there, again, no one can venture on an exact estimate as to the aggregate expenditure which year by year will be required. A very great deal will depend upon the number of questions remitted to such a National Industrial Board, upon the character of those questions, whether they are simple or otherwise, and involving long or short sittings, as the case may be. In any event, taking these two parts of the Bill, that is the committees of investigation, local and national, under Part I, and the National Industrial Board under Part III, provision must be made for payment of a chairman, if that be required, for subsistence and other allowances, and we have reached the conclusion, or the view, that probably £35,000 in the aggregate would adequately cover these two features of the legislation.
I now come to the other and new part of the Bill of which I have given notice in Amendments on the Paper, that is,
those Amendments which provide for the setting up of a body of Commissioners called the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commissioners, whose duty it will be to survey the whole field of the coal mining industry of this country and to ascertain how best amalgamations of these colliery undertakings can be approached; to prepare schemes of amalgamation, that is, on a compulsory basis, because this provides for compulsory amalgamation; to see that these undertakings are fused into a single unit or such number of units as the Commission may determine. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the Committee that these estimates which I am giving this afternoon cannot be anything more than the most intelligent forecast which we can make in a field which is largely unascertained or doubtful as to the amount of work which will be involved. Without in any way embarking upon the merits of the Bill, there does not appear to be any doubt that if this part of the legislation goes through, numerous schemes will, in fact, be promoted on a voluntary basis, and to that extent the outlay incurred by the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission will be reduced. Then, the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission may itself take the initiative in many schemes which are carried to a certain point, and at that point the owners may be willing to agree to the proposals which are made, and expenses will tend to disappear.
There will be other cases in which compulsion will, so to speak, run its full course, and owners will exercise their right of appeal, it may be, before the Railway and Canal Commission, or even beyond that body if provision to that effect remains in this legislation. No one, of course, could place a figure upon the cost of amalgamation. There have been one or two recent amalgamations in this industry which have cost large sums of money—and if we try to take the test of other industries it is not easy to find anything which corresponds exactly to this problem—we are at a disadvantage, in a sense, in the very limited degree to which amalgamation has in fact proceeded in the coal mines of this country; but, everything considered, we believe that £250,000 will cover the remuneration of the three commissioners, subsistence and other allowances and technical and other
assistance, including valuers and expert help which these commissioners will require from time to time to engage. That accounts for approximately £250,000 which, if it be added to the £35,000 I have already explained, gives a total of £285,000 per annum, which is the provision forecast in the Financial Resolution which I now propose.
There remains one simple point which it is my duty, on financial grounds, to put to the Committee. Under the Mining Industry Act, 1920, which established the Mines Department, there is a limit of £250,000 per annum on the expenditure which that Department may incur. Hon. Members know that there are two classes, if not more, in our Estimates. There are the Estimates which are perfectly clear and open, which may be varied from year to year, and as to which, of course, Supplementary Estimates may be added, and there are other Estimates to which a statutory limit is attached. The Estimates of the Mines Department are in the second class, and while it is true that the actual expenditure under the Mines Department has never in fact reached the limit of £250,000, if this expenditure under the new legislation fell upon that Department, that limit would be very greatly exceeded, and it would be necessary to take powers under this legislation to provide for the removal of a limit of that kind. I am advised that the technical and correct way of doing it—and I depend on Treasury guidance in these matters—is to do it separately under this Bill. Accordingly, this expenditure is quite outside that £250,000 annual limit which is embodied in the Act of 1920, and which, for the ordinary purposes of the Mines Department, remains.
One further and minor point. A certain small part of the expenditure that is attributable to the effort of the Mines Department itself may, in fact, rest on the Mines Department Vote, but that is of no consequence this afternoon. It is merely a minor part of the outlay under this scheme. I ought also to explain that in the case of these amalgamations, the ordinary or what I would call the administrative expenditure of the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission will be borne on public funds, but the technical and other expenses which are attributable to the inquiry as to whether
amalgamation is possible or desirable, and the terms on which it is to be carried out, part of that expenditure will undeniably be recoverable from the industry itself. It is perfectly true that we are now urging that these amalgamations are essential in the public interest, but full regard will be had to the rights of the parties, and they will be also in the interest of the industry itself, and there is ample precedent, of course, for amalgamated concerns in such a position to make contributions to the public outlay which the Commission may deem appropriate in the circumstances of the amalgamation which is recommended. That is a very brief, but, I trust, an adequate, summary of the Financial Resolution, without in any way getting into the merits of the Bill, which are reserved for the Committee stage, and I trust that it will command the support of the overwhelming majority of this Committee.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has stated very plainly to the Committee what his Resolution covers. In this Financial Resolution he is asking for a very large sum of money indeed, for an undetermined sum of money, but he is limited very strictly as regards the purposes to which that unlimited sum of money can be applied. Before I come to the merits of what he proposes to spend his money on, I wish to raise a point which is of crucial importance to our discussion of this Bill in Committee. I am advised that if the House passes this Financial Resolution in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman has presented it to us to-day, we shall be precluded in Committee on the Bill from moving any Amendments which involve, any sort of public charge not coming within the precise terms of the Resolution—that, I know is the rule of this House—and that I am equally precluded by the rules of the House from moving an Amendment to this Resolution. I cannot move art Amendment which would involve any extra charge; that can be done only by the Government.
I want to put this very plainly to the Government, and I believe it will command assent in all quarters of the House. Whatever may be said as to the merits of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman said on the last occasion whatever
he could say for it, it must be agreed that its reception in the House and in the country has been such as to make it plain that it will be necessary, if it is ever to become law, for it to receive very drastic amendment in Committed The very fact that the Bill is drafted in a way which makes it difficult to reshape it into a workmanlike form makes it all the more important that in Committee we should have free and full facilities to make whatever Amendments are possible within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this assurance to the House: that he will recast the Financial Resolution which he is proposing to-day in such a form that any of us in any part of the House may be able, within the scope of order, to move any Amendment to the Bill which we think desirable. If he is not prepared to do that, then certainly we must vote against this Resolution. During the last Debate he said very frankly to the House, and I think the Prime Minister repeated it, that he invited the fullest criticism of the Bill; that if the House wished to remodel the Bill it would be open to the House to do so. But unless we have a Financial Resolution which gives us the power to remodel the Bill, then that invitation is useless, and by the Financial Resolution which is being proposed to-day, so far from giving us facilities, the right hon. Gentleman is muzzling our Debate; because it would have been even better if he had—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it would only be in order to ask the Government to withdraw the Resolution. They cannot remodel the Resolution.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is precisely the argument which I am presenting to the Committee—that this Resolution as it stands is inadequate for the purpose which this House wants; and unless I can have an undertaking from the Government that the Resolution will be withdrawn and another one substituted for it, I and my hon. Friends will most certainly vote against the Resolution. If I may respectfully say so, you, Mr. Chairman, have exactly summarised my argument.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether it
is not competent for the Government themselves to move an Amendment—I quite realise that the Government cannot move an Amendment without withdrawing the Resolution—but I mean move an Amendment in order to make it possible to discuss in Committee any particular Amendment which may be down on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) did not indicate the Amendment he had in his mind, but I have a suspicion of what it is. Supposing it were found impossible to discuss that Amendment when we come to it, because it was not within the terms of the Resolution, would it be competent for the Government, without committing themselves on the merits of the particular Amendment, so to amend their Resolution as to enable the Committee to discuss it?

The CHAIRMAN: The Resolution before the Committee has received the King's Recommendation, and I think we are barred from enlarging the Resolution in the Committee to-day. I feel that the only way to meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman would be for the Government to withdraw the Resolution and to bring in another one.

Mr. GRAHAM: It may clarify matters if I say that to the best of my knowledge this Resolution is sufficiently elastic to cover a very wide Debate as regards the production and disposal of coal by owners, in the terms of the title of the Bill; but I think I can add this. If during the Committee stage—and that part of the Bill comes at a, very early stage—it were found that discussion were being restricted, I am very willing to consider recommitting the Resolution in order to liberate discussion. My whole object is to have a perfectly free Debate, and I can give the Committee an assurance that there will be no restriction in that matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I take it from him that he is anxious to implement the undertaking given on Second Reading that, provided we did not go outside the scope of the Bill, we could put forward any Amendment. That is what he wishes; but with all his good will he can-
not override the Standing Orders of the House, and it will not rest with him to decide what we may discuss in Committee, but with the Chairman. I will indicate the type of Amendment I have in mind. I have put on the Paper an Amendment giving a right of appeal by a consumer—or an industry—who considers he is being overcharged for coal or unfairly treated in matters of the administration of the district scheme. My Amendment would set up a judicial Commission consisting of a judge, an accountant, and a man with business experience—a parallel body to the Railway and Canal Commission.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: For instance, Hatry—a business man.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think this is rather a serious matter. At any rate, we regard it as such. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have found from his investigations that in the country both industrial and domestic consumers are very anxious to know how these schemes may affect them. It is absolutely essential that there should be an opportunity for appeal from a district board, whose functions are undefined, whose operations are not governed by any known rule, according to this Bill, and the appeal should be to a strong, authoritative judicial tribunal, which would have the confidence of the country, and the power to make an award. We regard that as absolutely essential. Already we give this right to traders in certain disputes which arise between them and the railway companies. They can go to the Railway and Canal Commission or to the Railway Rates Tribunal in regard to matters which are defined by precise Acts of Parliament. If it be necessary to have a court of appeal in railway matters it is 10 times more necessary to have a similar judicial court of appeal where you have these undefined powers.

The CHAIRMAN: I must rise to protect myself. I take it the right hon. Gentleman is just giving these instances as illustrations. We cannot have this point developed in subsequent speeches.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am giving it as an illustration. When I come to discuss the merits, I will confine myself precisely to what is in this Resolution.
It is of vital importance that we should know that this Amendment, and, it may be, other Amendments of great importance, will not be ruled out of order if we move them in Committee. Suppose that in Committee I rise to move an Amendment which obviously involves the payment of this Court—the payment of the judge and the two assessors. Within the terms of this Resolution as it is drawn I am obviously out of order and I cannot move the Amendment. I shall have to substitute for the proposed Court some existing body like the Railway and Canal Commission, which is what I do not want to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has said, "I want you to be able to move an Amendment. I want you to have the greatest freedom. If I see that an Amendment of this kind has, in large measure, the support of the House, and that any section of opinion attaches importance to it, I shall be quite ready to move to recommit the Bill." But the point is that I shall not be allowed to open my argument. If the Amendment did not come within the scope of the Financial Resolution, I should be at once ruled out of order, and be told that I could not discuss it. Therefore, however willing the right hon. Gentleman might be to allow me to open my argument and deploy all my reasons I should be ruled out of order by the Chair. I have given that as an example.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has ideas about how the trade ought to be re-organised; I do not know what they are, but they would presumably involve large Amendments, and for ought I know they might involve some expenditure of public money. Even if somebody in the Mines Department were asked to undertake some new work, it would have to be paid for. This Resolution, however, is strictly limited to the precise objects which find themselves either in the Bill itself or in the new Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman has put down. While I appreciate the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to offer me full facilities, I cannot close with that offer until I know whether he is in a position to implement it under the Rules of the House. I submit that before we take our decision as to whether this Resolution should go through, or whether we should press the right hon. Gentleman
to withdraw it and to substitute a new Resolution, we must have an absolutely authoritative statement from him that he gives us an undertaking that any Amendment that we move within the scope of the Bill will not be ruled out of order. He is quite well enough acquainted with Parliamentary procedure to know that he must satisfy himself with the authorities of the House that he is in a position to give an undertaking and to implement the undertaking.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Has the right hon. Gentleman not told us already that it is quite outside the power of the President of the Board of Trade to give him that guarantee, because you are the only individual who has the right to say what Amendments will come before the Committee and what will not? Then what is the meaning of him raving on like this?

The CHAIRMAN: We are now discussing the Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that you alone, Mr. Chairman, have the power to decide what Amendments should come before the Committee and what Amendments cannot be moved. At any rate, you have relegated that power to yourself when some of us sitting on this side of the House were under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: No Amendment has been moved to this Resolution, and there cannot be any Amendment moved to it of the kind suggested. Of course, that does not preclude the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) from putting forward the argument which he is using. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the President of the Board of Trade either to withdraw this Resolution or to find ways and means of making the discussion and the moving of Amendments in Committee wider and more open.

Mr. MAXTON: I am quite sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) is doing. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to give your Ruling on Amendments a week in advance of the proper time.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have very carefully avoided asking for the
Ruling of the Chair on any matter except in regard to the Resolution which is now before the House. I am now doing what I am perfectly entitled to do; that is, I am taking steps to make sure that this House, at a later stage, shall not find the full right of debate curtailed in any way. It is precisely because I fully realise that I cannot ask the Chairman whether he will rule my Amendments out of order at some future date that I am requesting from the President of the Board of Trade to give us an undertaking that he will present what is absolutely within his power, that is a financial Resolution which will not rule out any Amendments which I, or right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, desire to move. I am bound to make that request to the President of the Board of Trade because he is the only person who can give us such an undertaking.
The President of the Board of Trade has stated that this is essentially a matter of Parliamentary procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has also told us that he wants the Committee to have an absolutely full and unfettered discussion of the Amendments on the Paper. I am submitting—and I believe I am right in my submission—that, unless the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Financial Resolution wide enough to cover the Amendments which we want to move, he will not be able to implement his undertaking, and, when the Amendments come up for discussion we shall probably be ruled out of order, and we shall not be able to move them, although the President of the Board of Trade desires that those Amendments should be discussed. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider this matter, and intervene at a later stage in order to give, on his own authority as the Minister responsible for piloting this Bill through the House, an absolute assurance that our Amendments will be in order. If he cannot give such an assurance then I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Resolution, and reintroduce it in a form that will permit the moving of the Amendments which we have set down on the Order Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the custom, when a Money Resolution has been passed, that all Amendments proposed in connection with the Bill which is
being dealt with must be in conformity with the Money Resolution. The Money Resolution covers the expenditure necessitated by the Bill, and it is not the custom of the House to alter Money Resolutions in order to allow hypothetical Amendments to be proposed by the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN: When the Bill comes into Committee, I shall consider the Amendments on the Paper in their relation to the Bill before the House and the Money Resolution passed by the Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this discussion quite premature, and surely this Debate ought to be left until the Amendments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) are reached on the Committee stage. That is the time for the Chairman to decide whether or not a particular Amendment comes within the scope of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon is not out of order; he is simply pointing out that the Resolution which we' are discussing does not go far enough, and he is asking the President of the Board of Trade be withdraw this Resolution, or at any rate, to do something to alter the Resolution. No point of Order can he raised on that question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have endeavoured not to take the President of the Board of Trade by surprise. We have our principal Amendments ready, and they have been placed on the Order Paper in order that the right hon. Gentleman may see them, and introduce his Financial Resolution accordingly. I think I have made my point clear, and I believe it is the general sense of the House, and certainly the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, that whatever is necessary to be done in this matter shall be done. The right hon. Gentleman must either withdraw this Resolution and present another Resolution, or else he must give us to-day an authoritative statement that that course will be unnecessary. I leave the matter there. Unless the President of the Board of Trade can convince us that the Amendments which we wish to move will not be cut out by the Financial Resolution which we are discussing; unless he can
convince us that that is the case, I ask him to withdraw this Resolution and bring in another general Resolution wide enough to include our Amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, then there is no other possible course for me to take except to advise those sitting on these benches to vote against this Resolution. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is just as anxious to discuss our Amendments as we are, but I wish to make my position perfectly clear.
I want to ask a few questions about the part of the Financial Resolution dealing with amalgamations. The right hon. Gentleman is taking full power to finance the Commissioners who are to promote amalgamations. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not give us a fuller explanation of his intentions in regard to that matter. When the President of the Board of Trade moved the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, he gave a complete account of everything in the Bill. This proposal to promote and stimulate amalgamations forms no part of the original Bill, as it was dealt with on the Second Reading, and consequently we had no Debate on that question during the Second Reading Debate. I am quite sure that, if the new Clause dealing with amalgamations had formed part of the Bill as it was originally introduced, the right hon. Gentleman would certainly have given a full explanation of his intention and the purpose of that Clause as he did of the other Clauses which formed part of the original Measure. Consequently, we are in a difficulty to-day in this respect. If we go into Committee, or if the Committee considers the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that the new Clauses shall be taken first, then we shall find ourselves discussing in Committee a new Clause upon which we have not had a Second Reading Debate. I know that we have had the Second Reading of the Bill, but it is very important that, some short time before we go into Committee, we ought to know exactly what is in the Minister's mind.
First of all, I want to ask who are the Commissioners to be? What type of people are to be appointed, and on what principles will the Commissioners proceed? The right hon. Gentleman said that under the Financial Resolution
they are to promote and assist schemes of amalgamation. I think anyone who has had much experience, either of the formation of amalgamations or the dissolving of amalgamations which have not been very successful, will agree with me when I say that there is no merit in the word "amalgamation." This is really the last thing you can generalise about, and each case has to be decided on its merits. May I put one other proposition to the President of the Board of Trade? There are quite a number of amalgamations which I think ought to take place and which would be useful, but I would lay down as a first condition that you should see that they are not promoters' amalgamations but manufacturers' or producers' amalgamations. We do not want any amalgamations in which the expenses of promotion are to be paid by an over weighted industry. That is the first cardinal principle which ought to be made perfectly clear.
My second proposition is this: An amalgamation is sound if the result of the amalgamation is to make the units amalgamated more efficient, and if the amalgamation takes place on fair terms. I am sure it would be very easy for any body of Commissioners appointed in this way to find quite a number of weak or inefficient pits which would only be too glad to be taken over and bolstered up by a strong, responsible, and efficient undertaking. If a scheme of amalgamations were to be embarked upon on a geographical basis, if you were to say, "Here is an area, and there are 12 pits in this area; let us amalgamate them all, you might be doing the worst possible service to this industry. We had something to say on the Second Reading about the quota system and the stabilising of a standard tonnage giving a vested interest to an inefficient or a weak pit, and there is a good deal to be said in support of our contention. The vested interest, the unearned and unreal value, which you may give by a standard tonnage or quota to a weak pit, is nothing to the vested interest and the new value that you would give if you took half-a-dozen weak pits that ought to go out of existence and bolstered them up by amalgamating them with a strong undertaking. That
would be to give a bad pit a new life and a new value which it ought not to possess.
I know something of these matters, and I am sure that there will not be wanting people with inefficient undertakings who, if they see amalgamations in the air, and see peripatetic commissioners coming and inviting amalgamations, will come forward with proposals for amalgamation with their more efficient or stronger neighbours. I should like to know that, if we give these Commissioners the finance that we are asked to give to them by this Resolution, it will be an established principle and an absolute direction to them that they are not to bolster up bad and inefficient and weak pits by amalgamating them with good pits, whose strength and service to the communnity can only be reduced if they have these liabilities thrust upon them. Then there is the proposal for compulsion. I have nothing to say against that, provided that it is used reasonably. I do not believe in wholesale compulsion where people in the industry itself do not believe in it—

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Are we debating the policy to be pursued by the Commissioners who are to be appointed, or are we debating the sum of money that is to be placed at the disposal of the President of the Board of Trade in order to recompense the Commissioners appointed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose—

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking the Chairman of the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: I am entitled to speak on the point of order. I submit that it has been the immemorial practice of the House that, if a scheme is put forward in a Financial Resolution and money is asked for for it, we are entitled to ask for an explanation and to criticise that which is the subject of the Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: Further on the point of Order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is no scheme proposed in this Money Resolution? The scheme is in the Bill, and, consequently, when we come to the Bill, we shall discuss the matter, and not on the Money Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: The Money Resolution as submitted to the House suggests a certain number of Committees, and those Committees will be set up in the Bill, but, before the money is granted, the right hon. Gentleman is within his rights in asking for information as to what those Committees will be and what their duties will be. He is not entitled to lay down rules and regulations for the guidance of those Committees, but he is entitled to know what their duties will be.

Mr. MACLEAN: I submit that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is submitting procedure which he thinks the Commissioners, when appointed, ought to follow, and, consequently, he is discussing policy.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be submitting to the President of the Board of Trade a proposal that these Commissioners should not be compelled to carry out any definite scheme of amalgamation, but should be left free to decide how amalgamation should take place.

Mr. MACLEAN: Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN: I say that I understood that from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. MACLEAN: My understanding, and the understanding of those around me, is quite different. We may have misunderstood, but we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is pointing out the lines along which these Commissioners must go—that they must not be permitted to carry out certain amalgamations of uneconomic pits with economic pits.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman at this stage has no right to lay down rules and regulations for the Commissioners—

Mr. MACLEAN: That is what he is doing.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be suggesting to the President of the Board of Trade that the Commissioners should not be forced to do a particular thing.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: You have appreciated precisely, Mr. Young, the lines on which my argument was directed. I want to ask one other
question. As I have said, provided that compulsion is exercised in order to compel an obstructive minority to join a sound scheme on fair grounds, I do not think there are many people who would be found to object to it, but to wander outside that path would be radically unsound and unacceptable to the efficient people whom you really want to assist in this matter, and, after spending in this way £250,000 a year—which is a pretty considerable sum to ask for—the industry might be landed in an even worse state than that in which we now find it. Before we give the general sanction of a Financial Resolution to the paying out of a large amount of money to this new authority, I think we ought to know the general lines which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about one other thing, as I am not sure whether it is within the Resolution or not. Is it within the Resolution, and is it intended, that these Commissioners should have any financial powers—any powers, where amalgamations are desirable and are recommended, to arrange the finance? I take it that there is no direct power to give financial assistance, but is it intended, by the wording of the Resolution as to promoting or assisting these amalgamations, that it should be a function on the Commission to try to arrange for finance in cases of amalgamations? That is very important, because I think we shall find, when we come to consider the question of amalgamation, that you may have cases where amalgamation would be desirable if you can re-equip a pit, make new combined plant, and so on. Is it the intention that these Commissioners should have any power to try to arrange for finance in such cases?
Then I should like to ask—and I think that this also is very important—whether it is intended that the Commissioners in their work should concentrate in the first instance on those cases where, from the knowledge that there is at the Board of Trade, from negotiations which have taken place—and the right hon. Gentleman knows, and I know, that there are such negotiations—amalgamation would be very useful and ought to take place Lastly, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is power under
this Resolution to deal with amalgamations for purposes of sale, as distinguished from amalgamations for production. I will not go into the merits of that question now, but I am not clear whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to give the Commissioners power to recommend combined selling organisations as well as combinations for production. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks again, he will let us know whether selling combinations will be included.
Whether the action of these Commissioners be justified or not, whatever view we may ultimately take of the appointment of this Commission when it is debated, as it must be, in Committee and in the House, it is certain that the operation of such a reorganisation scheme must take a long time. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it is much more difficult to arrange for the amalgamation of coal mines than of ordinary businesses. In the case of businesses you have a series of factories, you can see the capital, you can see the accounts, you can see what business they do, what machinery they have, and what their turnover is, and it is relatively easy to arrive at terms for the amalgamation of a number of manufacturing units. It is incomparably more difficult when you are dealing with coal mines, because you are dealing with unascertained amounts of coal below ground, and a hundred and one difficulties and contingencies.

Mr. MACLEAN: I must rise again to a point of Order. I suggest that this is trifling with the whole question. There is nothing here about amalgamation at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] The whole Resolution deals with the remuneration to be paid to Commissioners who are likely to be appointed, to the Chairman of the Commission, and to other people who may be employed; but the right hon. Gentleman is debating the whole text of the Bill—he is indulging in a Second Reading speech.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is it not the fact that, but for this Financial Resolution, under the terms of the original Bill there could be no possible amalgamations of any kind?

Mr. MACLEAN: Certainly there could.

The CHAIRMAN: As I have already said, the right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in wanting to know what the duties of these committees will be. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of powers to promote and assist amalgamation, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to information in relation to that matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the fact that the composition of the committees is described in the Bill itself?

Mr. E. BROWN: Read the Bill!

The CHAIRMAN: The question put deals, not with the composition of the committees, but with the powers of the committees.

5.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman knows so well how complicated and difficult it is even to get a valuation of a coal undertaking, and it is, therefore, obvious that any Commission trying to promote amalgamations is going to take a long time. During that time, presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman gets his Bill, Part I will be operative, and it is, therefore, all the more important that, while this Amalgamation Commission is at work, if we are to have Part I of the Bill, we should have it in a form which will do as little damage as possible. I come back to my first point, namely, the absolute necessity of making sure that we have a Resolution which gives us full freedom of discussion. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point in regard to an Amendment of his own. He has put down an Amendment, as a sort of alternative, I suppose, to my Amendment proposing a judicial Commission, that, where a party is dissatisfied with the ruling of a committee of investigation, there may be an appeal to an arbitrator But within this Financial Resolution, as it is at present drafted, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can move that Amendment at all. The arbitrator, presumably, will have to be paid, and presumably he is not going to be paid by the parties—at least, I do not think that that can be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, because he is proposing in his Resolution that the chairman of the committee should be paid a salary by the State. The Amendment proposes a Court of Appeal from the Investigation
Committee, and that Court of Appeal is an arbitrator, but in his financial Resolution I think he takes no power to pay the arbitrator whom he proposes to appoint. Therefore, if my contention is right, when he wants to move the Amendment for the protection of the consumer which he has put down on the Order Paper, he will find that it is not within the terms of his own financial Resolution. I hope we need not have a fight to-day on something upon which I believe we are agreed. The right hon. Gentleman is expressing anxiety about it, but I appeal to him to make sure that he can implement that undertaking, and I believe he can only implement it by withdrawing this Resolution and introducing one comprehensive enough to carry any Amendments that may be moved.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual lucidity, has made quite clear to us what the monetary provisions of the Resolution will cover. I have very considerable sympathy with the appeal of the late President of the Board of Trade that it should be wide enough to admit of discussion of all germane Amendments, Amendments which do not go to the root of the Bill, but may or may not be improvements of machinery. The House ought to be free to discuss them. I express no opinion about the appointment of a judicial committee, but if there is to be a committee of that kind, I hope it will not be the Railway Commission, for many reasons which I do not wish to state. If there is a Commission, it would be very much better that it should be an ad hoc one. It would be a misfortune if, when we came to that part of the Bill, we found that the Money Resolution had been so restricted that the Chairman would be bound to rule us out of order. I think there would be a general feeling that the House had not had, I will not say a fair deal, because I know the right hon. Gentleman means to give it a fair deal—if it was not permitted to discuss fairly the way in which the Bill ought to be moulded and improved. I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is quite prepared, if necessary, to take any steps, either by an amending Resolution or, if necessary, by withdrawing it for the purpose of enabling the Committee to have a full and fair discussion upon all relevant Amendments. There are two
ways in which the right hon. Gentleman might meet us in that respect. After we have had such a discussion as is within the rules of Order to-day, he could then say he would withdraw the Resolution and reintroduce it in a form which will cover all fair Amendments, on the understanding that, when we come to that, there will be no discussion upon it, that discussion should be confined to a discussion upon what is down on the Paper to-day and, when it was exhausted, the right hon. Gentleman should say, "I withdraw the Resolution, but it must be understood that, when the amended Resolution is moved, there will be no further discussion and it will go through by common consent, so that whatever is to be said will be said to-day." That, I think, would save a good deal of time, and it would enable the House, when it goes into Committee, to have a thorough examination of these proposals and mould them according to its wishes.
The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that, in his judgment, this Resolution will cover all the expenditure that is necessary in order to carry into effect the purpose of his Clause. When the Clause comes up for discussion, there will be, in the first instance, not a detailed discussion but a Second Reading discussion upon the Clause itself. I do not know whether he overlooked that fact. You will get a discussion on the principle, and all these issues can be raised and discussed before we enter into a detailed discussion of the Amendments. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, when the valuers are appointed, in his judgment their remuneration will be covered by the Resolution. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point about arbitrators is covered. I have looked at it very carefully. My first impression was that it was, but on going into it a little more carefully, you can hardly call an arbitrator a servant of the Commission. He ought to be the master of the Commission. He is neither a secretary, an officer, nor a servant, and it is worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to consider whether his case will be covered by the terms of the Resolution. At any rate, if he is going to withdraw it finally and put it in a form which will make it a little wider, he could certainly cover that point as well as the other. As far as valuers are concerned, I attach great importance to the Resolution permitting
Amendments if necessary. I am not sure that the Government Amendment will not cover it, but when we go into Committee I shall press for an independent valuation. I have great sympathy with one of the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to certain amalgamations. I agree with him entirely that it is vital that they should be producers' amalgamations and not promoters'. We have had a very unfortunate experience in South Wales in certain amalgamations. They have been very disastrous from a producers' point of view and also from the miners' point of view. They are generally criticised because undoubtedly there is a great deal—I do not like to use the word plunder—but a good deal of cash there which was not represented by any real asset. It is vital, when you get amalgamations, that they shall be based upon the real value of the mines.
That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second criticism about taking over weak mines. These mines will only be taken over on their real value. There is such a thing, which valuers always take into account, as a nuisance value. They may be interfering with the working of other pits and, therefore, it may be worth the while of the other pits to pay something to get full command over their own operations, but if there are valuers appointed, there will be no danger of worthless pits being taken over and diluting, as it were, the capital of good pits and constituting a burden upon them. However, I do not propose to enter into that matter, because we shall discuss it when we come to Committee, but I agree that it is very important that we should not bolster up worthless mines, because that would not merely make amalgamation a failure but would add to the burdens and difficulties of the industry, and Heaven knows its difficulties are quite great enough now. The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the Bill of 1926 gave a very full opportunity for voluntary schemes to be carried through and it gave a very full opportunity to the coal owners to put their house in order. They have not done so and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken the step that is embodied in these Amendments on the Paper. With regard to the terms of
them, I will not express any opinion, but I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recast the Money Resolution on the understanding that the Debate comes to an end to-day in such a form as to enable a bonâ fide Amendment—I certainly regard the Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as a bonâ fide one whatever its merits may be—to be recast in such a way as to enable the Committee to consider all Amendments of that character.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is rather difficult to decide on the spur of the moment with regard to the request of the two right hon. Gentlemen because of the numerous and highly technical questions that are involved. But, before approaching that, I should like to say a word or two regarding some of the questions that have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman speaking for the Official Opposition constantly alluded to Amendments within the scope of the Bill and certainly viewing the Resolution, and having regard to the Amendments, I should not have any doubt personally at this stage that the fullest and freest discussion during the Committee proceedings was possible and he is, of course, perfectly correct, as is also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in pointing out that that is our common desire. Perhaps I may first say one or two words of a general character. No one disputes that this Bill raises a very large and important question in one of the biggest and most difficult industries in the country. I have never disputed that parts of it are perhaps highly controversial and that it is of vital importance that there should be the in lest discussion of the Bill during the Committee stage, because I am firmly of the view that a Measure substantially on these lines at this time is essential to the recovery of the industry and to the legitimate protection of the men and their dependants who rely upon it. That is the spirit in which we approach the problem, and my own desire is to regard this financial Resolution as of such a kind as to facilitate discussion of Amendments of the nature the right hon. Gentleman opposite described as coming within the scope of the Bill. I rather think also that, as regards the Committees, the establishment of the National Industrial Board
and the duties of the new Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, the Resolution is of a very comprehensive nature.
Before I approach a specific reply on that point I should like to say a word or two on the merits of the proposals relating to the Amalgamation Commission. During the short statement I made in introducing the Resolution, I expressly avoided the merits of that proposal because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs pointed out, there will be a full-blown Second Reading Debate, so to speak, on the Clauses dealing with the appointment of this Commission. I regarded that as the appropriate occasion on which I should tell the House, not only what was in the minds of the Government regarding the number of Commissioners to be appointed, but the kind of way in which they will go about their great task. I may so far anticipate at this stage of my reply as to say that it is our present intention to appoint three commissioners who will command confidence. This matter will be subject to reconsideration, or consideration, in this House, because I am aware that there are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who think that the number should be five or even more. The whole object is to get speed, and, of course, accuracy and efficiency in the discharge of these duties, and it is for us together to make up our minds as to what is the best form of tribunal or body to be appointed. Plainly that body will be charged with very difficult and highly technical tasks. Personally I think that probably there should be a very able chartered accountant, a very able lawyer familiar with commercial practice, and a very able mining engineer, and that they should survey this field and take all the circumstances into consideration and see what kind of voluntary material is available—because there may be an increased amount of voluntary material—and then proceed to the more difficult task, namely, the compulsory task. It is only certain coalfields in the country which are so far ripe for the kind of study and the active work in which these men will be engaged.
I said at an earlier stage that it may be one of the results of the passage of this part of this Measure through the
House of Commons that schemes of that kind will be stimulated by people who want to be amalgamated on a sound voluntary basis, rather than be compelled to come into some compulsory plan. The initiative will undoubtedly be supplied by these commissioners, that is, compulsion will be inevitable for that part of it, whereas under the legislation of 1926 the initiative has to be taken by someone in the industry before the subsequent partial compulsion becomes applicable at all.
These commissioners will deal very faithfully with the large problem of the uneconomic unit. During the Second Reading discussion on the Bill I tried to explain how very difficult it was to define an uneconomic unit. A unit which might be uneconomic or unprofitable to-day, though it may be a perfectly good concern, might be transferred to some other scheme, or there might be a change in the market and other varying conditions, which altered the whole outlook. I do not think that the Committee disputes for a single moment that efficiency cannot be determined in terms of the plant, electricity, machinery, or whatever the power may be, in a particular pit or unit. We all know that very up-to-date mines are running at a loss at the moment and that what may be described as obsolete concerns are making a profit. In any event these commissioners would have to apply their minds to that and many other problems. They would have to have regard to the public interest, which is the overriding consideration. They would have to be satisfied that the proposals were fair as between the parties proposed to be amalgamated, and, of course, quite definitely to exclude the undesirable. They would have to see as far as human ingenuity could devise, that amalgamation should take place in terms of the actual power of a group of units and on a sound producer's basis and to strip their proposals of the artificial values which would very speedily undermine the whole object of this part of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot give a detailed reply to my right hon. Friend opposite on all these points because they are points plainly for the new commissioners, but during the subsequent stages I shall have to detain the House on many occasions with expositions of what is is proposed to do.
My right hon. Friend asked also whether it would be within the power of these commissioners to deal with schemes for the sale of coal. Within the provisions of this Bill we are dealing with the production, disposal and sale of coal by the owners of collieries. We are quite plainly not dealing with coal distribution within the sphere of the retail trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not mean that. What I meant was amalgamations of the selling organisations belonging to collieries. I did not mean amalgamations of merchants, whether wholesale or retail, but the kind of amalgamations recommended in the Report. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Doncaster area there are selling organisations which are not touched at all. They are combined selling organisations representing a large number of collieries each of whom is a partner in the selling organisation although they are not partners necessarily in the production of the coal. It is that kind of selling organisation.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman because I was about to say almost in the next sentence that that was what I understand to be his position. We have not before us the wholesale or retail distribution, but we are concerned with the selling of coal by owners of undertakings. We are dealing with the owners' side of the industry and the disposal of coal. I cannot pledge myself this afternoon on the Financial Resolution, and having heard the previous debate on the subject, precisely what these commissioners will do, but I would say at once that it would be contrary to our purpose if these commissioners were not given a very free hand and a very comprehensive hand to deal with anything which they regard as relevant to the more economic production of coal. And, of course, they have to have regard to the public and any other interests at stake. I think that that applies to the points regarding the uneconomic pit and the question of sale.
My right hon. Friend also asked whether their powers would extend to
certain points of finance in the new amalgamated undertaking. In many cases it might not be necessary, as I understand it, to raise any new capital at all. I assume, therefore, that in these cases they will not go to the market. That is why it is proposed to have a very competent financial authority in the role of a chartered accountant on a commission of this kind. That commission, with its business, financial and engineering experience, will have to indicate what, in all the circumstances, in their judgment, are the appropriate financial arrangements, subject to conditions of amalgamation which we are going to discuss during the Committee stage, and which we propose to incorporate in the appropriate part of the Bill. Therefore, there will be a very full review. I have been almost afraid up to this point to enter into the merits of the Bill which are appropriate at this stage.
I want to conclude on the strict point which the two right hon. Gentlemen put to me regarding this Financial Resolution. It would be quite easy for me to withdraw it at this stage and promise to introduce a new Financial Resolution, and I should not have a moment's hesitation in taking that course if I had doubt as to whether Amendments of the kind which have now been discussed would be out of order during the Committee stage. The Committee will forgive one personal word. In 1924, I had a good deal of pretty hard experience of Financial Resolutions, and, while it is true that the tendency has been to draw these Resolutions, and very properly, in strict terms for the protection of this House and of the country, there are Resolutions which have a good deal of elasticity. There are certain Resolutions which enable the Chairman of the Committee to permit a very wide Debate. My view at the moment is that the Amendments are covered by what is on the Paper, but, if on a review of the Amendments to which I am going to undertake to agree, there be the slightest doubt, I should immediately ask for permission to re-commit the Resolution, but in any case there will be, as far as the Government are concerned, the fullest facilities for the kind of discussion which the House desires. I would ask the House not to pass this Resolution at the
moment because that might bind hon. Members, but to let us report Progress and adjourn the Debate at this stage, with this understanding, that if I find that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are fully protected, the Resolution goes through without further discussion in its present form, and that if I find that they are not fully protected I will immediately withdraw the Resolution, put another on the Paper, and all interest will be safeguarded.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure that I understand the proposal. The proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman was quite clear. We should finish our discussion to-day on this Resolution upon which other hon. Members may like to offer some observations, and when the Committee has said all that it wishes to say at this stage on the Resolution, we should consider the adjournment of the Debate, and we should, if necessary, have another Resolution so comprehensively framed as to be passed without discussion. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that proposition, and I hope that he will not press his Motion to report Progress at this moment, because I gather that there may be further discussion desired in Committee. After the further discussion of the Resolution in Committee is finished, he then should move to report Progress, and to-morrow, or whenever the further Resolution is taken, he can give us a formal assurance that we are protected, and that if not he can give us another Resolution. On that understanding, I am completely satisfied with the undertaking which he has given.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no difference between us. I simply moved to report Progress at this stage because I saw no desire on the part of hon. Members for further debate. I am bound to say that this rather surprised me because I thought there would be considerable debate. If hon. Members wish to continue, I will move to report Progress at a later stage to-night. If the ground is not completely safeguarded, I will so inform the House either to-morrow or Thursday and take the step which I have proposed if this step should be found to be required.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask leave to withdraw his Motion?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Motion be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. WALLHEAD: They want too much.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not oppose the withdrawal of the Motion. It was really a suggestion made very largely to facilitate business, and I think that that is the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. It was understood that it was only after the discussion had been exhausted to-night, and everybody did anticipate that the Debate would take a very long time. I know from experience that these Debates on Money Resolutions take up a very considerable time, especially when there are contentious measures. On the whole I think that the Government were getting on rather well with the discussion here and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will permit what I thought was a Parliamentary understanding with the Government which represents them on this occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no further discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was permitted to say something.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has risen to contest the withdrawal of the Motion, there is no need for him to do so, because I am going to put the Question that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. There has been objection to the withdrawal of the Motion. If the hon. Member desires to argue that point, he is in order.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said that there was a Parliamentary understanding. We understood, on this side, that the Debate should run to whatever hour of the evening was thought desirable, and should then terminate, and that whatever was in the mind of the
President of the Board of Trade would be put to the House. When the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs resumed his speech, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade looked round the House, hesitated, and as no hon. Member showed the slightest desire to continue the Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am speaking of what happened when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs resumed his seat. Before replying, the President of the Board of Trade looked round the House, hesitated, and then rose, because no one seemed to wish to continue the Debate. Therefore, we consider that the President of the Board of Trade was not in any way desirous of showing an intention of closuring the Debate when he moved to report Progress. Even when the President of the Board of Trade resumed his seat, no one showed a desire to continue the discussion, until one of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite egged on one of their supporters to rise. If there is going to be any trifling with time, any wasting of time, we can waste it also. I would point out that there are other Measures on the Order Paper to-day. I think the guarantee given by the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly fair and frank, and one which the Committee ought to accept. When the Money Resolution comes forward and the Bill comes forward ample opportunity will be given to every hon. Member to discuss anything that he may think is relevant to the Resolution or the Bill.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: I hope that we can carry out what we understood was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, endorsed by the President of the Board of Trade, which I accepted. But let me make it perfectly plain, that I accepted it on the terms proposed by my right hon. Friend, that this Debate should continue until those who wish to speak have exhausted their right, and that then we should agree to a Motion to report Progress. I make it quite plain that if the Motion to report Progress is to be forced to a Division now, against the wish of the President of the Board of Trade and against the common desire, we reserve our right to speak at any length on this and any other stages of the Bill.

Mr. PERRY: I think there has been some little misunderstanding. Earlier in the Debate the late Secretary for Mines (Colonel Lane Fox) wished to take part in the discussion, but I think he gave way because of the conversations that were taking place in regard to procedure. It is clear that we were expecting the late Secretary of Mines to speak, and I think he waived his right while the conversations were going on.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Colonel LANE FOX: The reason why no one rose from this side, was that we were expecting that tile President of the Board of Trade would reply, as with his usual courtesy he did. We are in a very unusual position over this Financial Resolution because, although, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the discussion on the Reorganisation Commissioners can be more fully taken when the Clause comes up, we are asked to pass this Financial Resolution and to authorise the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money without knowing, more than the right hon. Gentleman has told us, what the functions of the Commissioners will be. Although he has given us a certain amount of information, there are certain points that I wish to raise. A sum of £250,000 a year may not seem to be an excessive sum in this House, nowadays, but before it is authorised we ought to know what are the operations which the Commissioners are intended to carry out. What powers are they to have? Are they to have power to go into a district and to force mineowners to meet them, and to discuss their affairs? Are they to have power to demand to see their books and to go into the most intimate accounts of their undertakings? If not, are they to have power to go into a district merely to appeal to coalowners, on a sort of mission to teach, for instance, gentlemen like Sir Adam Nimmo, how they ought to manage their own business? I have a very strong objection to the idea of three superior persons gong fishing about in an industry and trying to teach men who have been in the industry all their lives, how to carry on their business.
If this money is going to be used to facilitate or to make easier or more rapid the process of amalgamation, which was certainly facilitated by the Act of 1926, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with some appreciation, then the money may be very much better spent; but I would point out that, under the Act of 1926, any single owner who is interested in an amalgamation can bring into court the other owners who are not prepared to agree. On the action of one single man a proposal for amalgamation can be brought into court and put into operation. Some of these proposed amalgamations may be such that nobody, apparently, has sufficient interest to take any part in them. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that a large proportion of the £250,000 will be recoverable from the amalgamated undertakings I say that that is a most unlikely result, because a great many of the suggestions which these Commissioners are likely to make are not likely to be carried into actual amalgamation. They will be dealing with propositions which those interested in the undertakings have not found to be sufficiently attractive or remunerative to make them worth carrying out, and it is extremely likely that in regard to a large number of the amalgamations which they may suggest they may find that the court will say that they are not proposals which they can put through. Therefore, in regard to these matters, there will be no sum recoverable. In other cases where the prosperous undertakings seek to absorb their less prosperous neighbours in order to improve their joint position, there will be no sum recoverable, because those things can be done without any action or interference on the part of the Commissioners.
I should like to know what sort of need of interference and what scale of interference will be necessary before any of the £250,000 will be recoverable. What part will the Commissioners have to take in the forming of amalgamations which will entitle them to recover some of the costs? These are all matters which are of considerable interest and may make a considerable difference to the opinions of hon. Members as to the value of and the need for this Financial Resolution. As regards the question of the single arbitrator and his payment, there is apparently no provision, but I understand
that if the right hon. Gentleman finds that that is not covered by the Resolution, he will amend it. We are asked to authorise a sum of money for purposes which are not clearly defined and which have not been explained to us fully, in spite of the courteous intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. We have not been told about the work or the power of the Commissioners. To ask us to vote this sum, blindfold, without knowing the full operation of the Commissioners, is a very unusual procedure in this House, and it is perfectly justifiable for any hon. Member on this side or in any other part of the House to inquire as to the fuller meaning of the proposal, even before we have a Second Reading Debate on the Clause which is to be moved for the purpose of establishing the reorganisation Commissioners.
I strongly object, on principle, to the idea of roving commissioners going about, interfering with business, unless it can be clearly proved that they are going to be of substantial value and use to the community, and can fulfil a need which cannot otherwise be met. It is far better to have amalgamations on the lines of goodwill and by general agreement if we can have them. Until we know something more about the nature of the Commissioners, what they are going to do, what their powers will be, whether they are going to have strong or arbitrary powers or weak powers, so that they will be futile, it is very difficult for us to know whether it is worth voting such a large sum of money.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I apologise for intervening again, but it is my duty to make a brief reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he will expect more than a brief reply on the points that he has raised. At this stage it is impossible to indicate the personnel of the Commissioners. I have already explained that they will number, in all probability, three or five, as the House may decide. There might be an eminent chartered accountant, an eminent mining engineer, and an eminent lawyer, familiar with commercial and industrial practice. These Commissioners will review the state of affairs in the coal industry of this country, as a whole, and they will then proceed to make specific proposals in particular districts. Of course, it is entirely for a Commission of that kind to
decide the lines on which it is going to work, but without in any way anticipating the policy it will pursue I imagine that it will look out for that kind of territory which is favourable to amalgamation, to use every voluntary scheme that came upon the scene, provided they are satisfied that it was in the public interests, that it was going to be a sound financial provision, that it was fair to all parties and did not contain those artificial and dangerous elements in its finance to which reference has been made. All these facts will be taken into account by a Commission of this kind.
It is perfectly true that we have passed from the voluntary principle contained in the Act of 1926. In that case it might be the initiative of an individual who suggests that an amalgamation is desirable, and then from that stage what I have always regarded as a modified form of compulsion could be applied. But here it is the Commissioners themselves who would initiate schemes of amalgamation, if those schemes are not suggested by the owners, and they can carry out and complete these schemes, doing their best to get the parties to agree. If the parties eventually agree then these schemes will become obligatory on all, and can be put into practice without further delay. All this is subject to a Committee analysis. If there is dissatisfaction or disagreement there is the right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and any further legal right of appeal which these parties may seek to exercise or enjoy. I will, of course, give a much more detailed explanation during the Committee stage, but I must point out that the suggestion for compulsory amalgamation has been pressed upon us, and, quite frankly, we had intended to incorporate it in a special Measure which would have been undertaken very soon after this Bill. Now we propose to include it in the present proposals. That is a rough outline of the position. There will be a provision, within the Financial Resolution, for the remuneration of the Chairman, or the other members of the Commission, if it is necessary, for technical and other expenses which may be necessary, and for subsistence allowances. I could not give the House a firm figure in this connection, because I do not know,
and no other hon. Member knows, the volume of work which will fall on these Commissioners. It will, of course, be considerably reduced if there is a fair volume of voluntary amalgamations. Beyond that I do not think I can go now, but I can reassure the right hon. Member, as I assured his leader, that there will be the fullest discussion during the Committee stage, and I will, of course, withhold no relevant information.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I did not hear the earlier speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not know whether he has dealt with this point. Is there any intention of giving these Commissioners statutory powers? Unless they have such powers they will be usable to proceed at all in cases where there are recalcitrant owners. In cases where the owners refuse they will not be able to find any basis on which amalgamation can be suggested. Is it intended during the course of the Bill to give them any such statutory powers, by which they can call for witnesses, and things of that sort?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member will find during the Committee stage that full provision is made for that. It would be idle to proceed unless complete information could be obtained.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not know how far one is entitled to go in discussing this Financial Resolution, and I do not want to branch into anything of the nature of a Second Reading speech. I shall be apt, Mr. Chairman, to take the slightest hint from you when I am transgressing. What I feel about this Financial Resolution is this. We are making a provision for unloading on this industry a number of more or less expensive officials who are to deal more or less with compulsory amalgamations. One would assume that those engaged m the industry would be the first to realise when amalgamations are likely to benefit the industry, and would themselves suggest amalgamation. One cannot imagine any third party, however distinguished the chartered accountant, the engineer—I forget the third man—may be, who can possibly come into other people's business
and compel them to come in. Compulsory amalgamation strikes me as an extraordinary breach of the ordinary decencies of life. Marriage is a blessed thing, but compulsory matrimony strikes me as being most offensive.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is entitled to ask whether they are going to have these powers, but he must not discuss them now.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Thank you. I have drawn an apt illustration, and I am rather sorry I am out of order. I submit that this Financial Resolution should not be passed. It is going to throw a very serious burden on the coal trade, and it will disorganise instead of organise the industry. You may organise it with military precision; you may get it like a regiment—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is saying the same thing over again. We are discussing the setting up of certain committees, and the hon. and learned Member is entitled to ask what their powers are, but he is not entitled to make a Second Reading speech.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is what I wanted to avoid. Their powers include compulsion, and I want to say that we are doing a great deal to over-burden the industry.

The CHAIRMAN: Having got the information, the hon. and learned Member must leave the discussion of these powers to a later stage.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Very good. I will merely say that compulsion is one of their powers. What are their other powers? Are they to be powers of persuasion or seduction, and, afterwards, is violence to be used? If that is so, I submit that you cannot do anything more injurious to a distressed trade than what is proposed here. I enter my protest against the Financial Resolution.

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill was introduced in another place quite recently, and received support from all parties, the Second Reading being carried without a Division. The purpose of the Bill is to provide further protection for young persons, chiefly young women, who go abroad to fulfil theatrical and dancing engagements, by raising the age from 16 to 18 below which a licence will be required before any person can go abroad for the purpose of singing, playing, performing or being exploited for profit. A considerable number of English artists travel abroad on the Continent and go as far afield as South America. These young artists prove to be very popular with foreign audiences, and in many cases find regular and well-paid employment. Where they are engaged by agents of repute, who undertake to see that their terms of contract are satisfactory, that the salaries paid are proper, and that ample provision is made not merely while they are in foreign countries but also for their return home when the contract terminates, there is very little room for criticism. But, unhappily, our experience proves that there are many agents who are not of repute, many employers who are unscrupulous, and owing to the absence of restrictions governing music halls and theatres in foreign countries the nature of the occupation of these young persons gives rise to grave risks and exploitation by those who do not display a proper regard for the interest of those they employ.
Consequently, it is felt desirable in the interests of these young persons that legislation of a more stringent character should be passed, and I am hopeful that there will be little hostility to this Measure, because the House of Commons has always shown great anxiety for the lives and welfare of young people. Parliament has already indulged in some
legislation on this matter. In 1913 the Children (Employment Abroad) Act was passed. It did two things. First of all, it made it an offence to allow young children under the age of 14 to go out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of singing, playing or performing or being exploited for profit, and it provided that licences must be obtained from a magistrate sitting at Bow Street before young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 years proceeded abroad for the purposes I have mentioned. When a licence is issued the magistrate inquires into the terms of the contract, sees that the conditions governing the employment of young people are proper, and also that arrangements are made for the return of these young people who find employment in foreign countries. His Majesty's Consul in the countries affected also sees that the conditions are properly carried out.
6.0 p.m.
The Act to which I have referred has worked very well. We have discovered that the number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 16 so employed is very small indeed. The number is considerably higher between the ages of 16 and 18. I find that between June, 1928, and June, 1929, 559 passports were issued to the women and young persons of whom I am speaking. To those under 16 only eight were issued; to those over 16 and under 18 the number issued was 95; and to those over 18 and under 21 the number was 147. The House will agree that the risk to the young woman between the ages of 16 and 18 is really greater than the risk to those between the ages of 14 and 16. The attention of the Home Office has been called to many cases, details of which I have here, which justify this Measure being introduced. In connection with the issues of passports the Foreign Office is prepared, by administrative action, to come to the rescue of these young people. Before issuing passports to those under the age of 21 they have sought to supervise in some measure the terms of the contracts. But we have found that that is totally inadequate and that the protection given to these young persons is incomplete. In connection with the League of Nations some inquiry was recently made, and many cases were reported of girls, owing to their employment
in this kind of work, finding their way into doubtful places and giving rise to the supply of prostitution. When the League of Nations had this matter under discussion the protection which this country afforded, by virtue of the Act of 1913, was strongly recommended, and His Majesty's Government then stated that it was proposed to raise the age from 16 to 18, which is the purpose of this Bill.
After these general remarks, let me state in definite terms what the Bill seeks to do. First of all, as I have said, it is proposed to raise the age from 16 to 18. It will be illegal for children below the age of 14 years to take employment for these purposes in foreign countries. Between the ages of 14 and 18 they will have to obtain a licence before they can accept employment abroad. In order to obtain a licence the applicant will have to go before the magistrate at Bow Street, who, from his wide experience, will see that the terms of the contracts are such as to safeguard the interests of these inexperienced young persons who seek to go to foreign countries, sometimes as far afield as South America. The magistrate will see that the wages or salaries to be paid are satisfactory, that the type of music-hall is such that the young persons ought to be employed in it, and, finally, that there is proper supervision—this is a vital matter—for the return of the young persons to this country when the contract is ended. The proposal of the Bill is one which will not arouse any hostility in any part of the House. As the Bill has found complete support in another place, I am hoping that the same thing will occur here. I am assured that those who are engaged in the theatrical business, those who understand the need for this kind of legislation, those who are familiar with the danger arising from the employment of these young people in foreign countries, give their support to the Bill. I think I may also express the opinion that the public will welcome a Bill of this kind, and I commend it to the House.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The proposals of the Bill and the speech of the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office will commend themselves to all quarters of the House. This is indeed a proposal upon which all well-disposed people can unite. My right hon. Friend the late
Home Secretary, now Lord Brentford, took a considerable part with reference to this proposal. I believe he was one of those who helped to draft the Bill, and that he put the assistance of the Home Office at the disposal of those who first brought the proposal forward. Even those who look somewhat suspiciously at any attempts to interfere with the liberty of the subject and take a rather strict view on matters of that kind, will agree that it is the duty of the State to see that young persons who are about to be engaged in entertainments of the character described receive, when they leave our shores, that protection which we can properly give them. Everyone will agree that we owe a good deal to our Consuls and Vice-Consuls in this matter. They have undoubtedly gone to a great deal of pains and have taken many steps to give what assistance and protection they could to many young people who have found themselves adrift in some foreign country. I do not think that we should forget the service that they have clone. Institutions like the Salvation Army and other people who do work in connection with young persons have urged on the House the necessity of increasing the age from 16 to 18. That proposal will undoubtedly bring in a good many more people than were brought under the provisions of the original Act. I am glad that that is so, and I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Without in any way wishing to introduce a discordant note into the Debate, it seems to me that the objects which this Bill seeks to attain could be attained almost equally well by strengthening and making more rigid the passport regulations. In that way the purpose of the Bill would be reached equally effectively without any risk of giving offence to foreign and Continental countries. In my opinion this Bill is tantamount to saying that we do not consider foreign countries fit places for our children to go to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is so. We say that the young persons must go to these foreign countries only under the strictest supervision and regulations. It is true that the same thing was said in 1913, but in those days we had very much less regard for the susceptibilities of public opinion
on the Continent than we profess to have to-day. In those days we were not making every effort, as we are to-day, to encourage the will for peace throughout the world. By legislation of this kind it seems to me that there is a risk of giving the impression abroad that we are insulting foreign countries regarding their morals and their manners. That is rather an unfortunate thing to do, especially when the purpose which we have in view can he equally well achieved at the Passport Office.
Another point which has occurred to me is that this Bill is not quite as satisfactory as it could be. It is true that the principal onus is placed upon the agents. It is perfectly right that an agent should be responsible for finding suitable employment to offer to young persons abroad, but at the same time the Bill endeavours to place a corresponding measure of responsibility upon the parent or the guardian. Up to the age of 14 parents have considerable power over their children, but I am very much afraid that in these days the average parent has very little control over a son or daughter who is rapidly approaching the age of 18, especially if that son or daughter is in a position to earn a good livelihood. Furthermore, there is placed upon the parent or guardian the responsibility for bringing that child back from abroad when the licence has expired. How on earth is the parent or guardian to live up to that responsibility? It is almost an impossible thing for him or her to do. Once a young person has left these shores and is in remunerative employment in a foreign country, it seems to me that even with the aid of the British Consuls throughout the world it is impossible to expect a parent or guardian to bring his or her child back to these shores.
That being so, it seems to me that it is rather a mistake to pass legislation which it is so difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. But the principal objection I have is the feeling which this Bill may create in foreign countries. It is legislation such as this, and the attitude which has been taken up in this country on so many occasions, that has given rise to the opinion, still held in many parts of the Continent, that we are a nation of hypocrites. It is equivalent to saying that we do not consider the people abroad are as
good as we are. By suggestions of that kind we are not furthering the cause that we have at heart, namely, making the relations between nations as amicable as they can possibly be made.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: One of the most extraordinary reasons that I have ever heard given in this House for objecting to a Bill of this kind is that contained in the speech to which we have just listened, namely, that if we exercise our own ideas as to how we ought to protect our children, we may give some offence to foreign countries. The very first duty of the House and of every citizen inside it or outside it, is to protect our young citizens, no matter what foreign countries may think. I cannot imagine a more useful Bill than this. I have read the Debate in the House of Lords, and, in addition, I have myself—for so many years that I do not care to look back upon them—taken a very keen and lively interest in the protection of children in this country. This Bill I know, from my personal experience, is urgently needed for the protection of young children and especially of young girls. I hope the House will give it a Second Reading with as little further Debate as possible so that it may reach the Statute Book without delay, thus giving some further protection to these young people, as well as some further evidence of what is, happily, the fact in our country, namely, the rising standard of our citizenship.

Mr. KNIGHT: I intervene only to say that I think the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has misconceived the purpose of the Bill. That is shown by his suggestion that it "object should be effected in connection with our passport system. The object of the Bill is to ensure that when young persons enter upon a contract of service abroad, that contract shall be of such a nature as is suitable to their age and condition, and, further, that when it expires or otherwise comes to an end, there "shall be some clause in the contract ensuring their safe return to their native country. These purposes will commend themselves to Members in every part of the House and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull will see reason to conclude that his fears are without foundation. This Bill will place a heavy
responsibility upon the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street. I happen to have some knowledge of the heavy duties of that office, and of the succession of eminent gentlemen who have filled it I assume that the Home Office, or the responsible authority, will take care that in connection with applications which come before that court full particulars will be given of the contract so that the magistrate will be able to exercise judicial judgment upon it. If the magistrate assures himself that the conditions are suitable for the applicant, and that, in the event of the contract of service coming to an end, the safe return of the child is secured, he will perform a public service of which Members in all parts of the House will approve.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill for one moment, but it is so seldom that I agree with anything which emanates from the party opposite, that I cannot refrain from indulging a cheerful sense of novelty by rising to express my sympathy with and approval of this Bill and my disagreement with my hon. and gal ant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). One of my reasons is that the Bill did not originate with hon. Members opposite, but is largely the child of this party. However. I do not wish to go into that question at all, but merely to express my own feeling in regard to the Measure. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull uttered a word of caution on one aspect of the matter which we sometimes lose sight of in this House The liberty of the subject is beginning to be like the proverbial Scotsman's "saxpence." Every time we pass an Act of Parliament bang goes somebody's liberty. That is inevitable in legislation and no doubt that condition attaches to the passage of this Bill, but the other considerations involved, in my opinion so infinitely outweigh that consideration, that we are entirely justified in giving our whole hearted support to this Measure.
The Under-Secretary has said that the Bill commands general support in the country. It is one of the few Measures brought forward in this House since I have been here, in connection with which I have not been inundated with appeals from different individuals asking me to oppose it. Therefore it would appear
that it has a general measure of support. We see so much to-day of legislation and of movements in favour of various kinds of protection for animals, and so many people seem to misdirect their sympathies from the young of the human race to the young of other races that it is satisfactory to welcome a Bill of this kind. Since so much has been done in connection with animals surely we must also recognise that we have a responsibility, above all others, in this House in our trusteeship of the young people of the country. We have been reading of late in the Press about the international drug traffic. Though not mentioned in the Bill there is no doubt that this Measure will hinder to some extent another international traffic to which one does not care to allude. Undoubtedly the suppression of that traffic will be helped by the Bill. Furthermore, we know of the experiences through which some of these young people pass who leave our shores and go abroad. They ought to receive whatever measure of protection we can give them here, and we ought to try to follow up that protection in every possible way when they go abroad. If we do not, we are guilty of a dereliction of our trusteeship in relation to these youngsters. There may be better ways of achieving this object and the Bill may be another infringement of the liberty of the subject, but I am quite satisfied that it has the hearty approval of the nation as a whole and can have nothing but beneficent results for the rising generation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed

to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATION) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th October], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to make a suggestion which may expedite the proceedings on this Bill. In the course of the previous Debate there was considerable criticism of many of the provisions of the Bill, particularly those in Clause 3.
I do not think, however, that many Members desire, if the Home Office is prepared to meet us, to deny this Bill a Second Reading, and perhaps in Committee the Home Secretary may meet the objections which have been urged. There are objections, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and others regarding some of its provisions, but if the Under-Secretary for the Home Department can make a statement as to exactly what he is prepared to do, it will help us with regard to our decision and, perhaps, prevent long proceedings this evening. I think we all desire to see some sort of regulation, but many of the conditions in the Bill are onerous and may affect institutions both small and large in a serious manner.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Before the Under-Secretary makes any statement, may I make some observations upon this Bill which, if passed in anything like its present form, may have some undesirable and unexpected results. I am interested in it because the Bill follows on legislation which was passed during the War when I had the privilege of being Home Secretary. That legislation was drafted under my authority and at my request, and I was able to carry it through Parliament. It is now proposed to extend legislation of that kind much more widely than the original Measure. At the time when the original Act was passed, in 1916, there were many abuses of the strong, emotional, philanthropic spirit aroused in the country by the conditions of the War. Almost anyone who appealed to the hearts of the public on behalf of any charity intended to benefit those who suffered directly or indirectly, from the War received a support which might be and often was quite undiscriminating. Serious abuses arose, and it was necessary for the Government and Parliament to take action, and all war charities—which were defined—were required to be registered, and no charity which was refused registration, or which having been registered committed abuses and was struck off the register, could proceed with its operations without those engaged in it committing a punishable offence.
To show how necessary that legislation was it is sufficient to say that no fewer than 250 charities were proceeded against and were either refused registration or
removed from the register. A strong Committee was appointed by the Home Secretary in the last Government to review this question of the abuse by fraudulent or semi-fraudulent charities of the philanthropic instincts of the community. They presented a Report saying that there should be permanent legislation; that power should be taken to hold inquiries into the conduct of any charity; that restrictions should be imposed, and that the Charity Commissioners should be given very considerable statutory powers. These provisions are included in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, and to those Clauses I have no objection, and I think the Bill ought to get a Second Reading in order to facilitate the enactment of those Clauses. It is Clause 3 which is open to criticism, and which requires careful examination. It gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations which would involve the licensing of all persons who undertake collections from house to house on behalf of any collecting charity. It also restricts the placing of collecting boxes for the purpose of any such charity.
This Clause follows the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, but the Committee and the Government had in view large important collecting societies—permanent societies which could look after themselves, or certain other quasi-permanent societies such as spring up from time to time and then perhaps disappear after a few years and which need regulation and examination. What they have not had in mind is the effect of a Measure of this sort on all kinds of friendly voluntary collections, especially in the working-class quarters of our towns, for particular and immediate purposes. For instance, a man dies and is not insured and his widow is in urgent and immediate distress. What can be better than that a few friends should go around among the neighbours and raise a sum to help, if necessary, to pay for the funeral and to keep the widow going for a few weeks? That would be a collecting charity under the Bill. Again, suppose that a man has just started business as a carter and his horse dies. His friends get up a little concert for him in the village and raise a few pounds to assist in buying him a new horse. That is a collecting charity under this Bill, for the definition is:
'Collecting charity' means a person or body of persons making to the public any appeal for support for charitable purposes.
And "charitable purposes" include:
any benevolent or philanthropic purpose.
Therefore, all these little undertakings which spring up from time to time will have to be licensed. Any persons engaged in any such effort will have to go to the police. Their character will have to be investigated. They will require a licence before they can undertake any such collection, and if they fail to fulfil these conditions they will be liable to a fine of £5. If it should ever happen, and it is not very likely, that there is a second offence they will be liable to imprisonment for three months. The result would be either that the people would not know of these powers at all, and would unwittingly commit all sorts all offences all over the country, or else they would be frightened of doing anything at all, and quite useful and proper undertakings would be checked. I think this House must be very careful before it creates new offences which closely touch the people in affairs which affect their everyday life, where people are unlikely to be acquainted with the details of the provisions of the law. That is my objection to this Clause 3, and I suggest that the Government should very seriously consider whether Clause 3 is necessary at all, because you have Clause 1, and you have Clause 2. If there is abuse in any charity, if complaint is made and the police know that a fraudulent person is collecting money by deceiving the public, they can take action under one of the first two Clauses, and Clause 3 will therefore not be necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can they not take action now?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am not sure. They can take action, I think, only in certain circumstances, if there are local powers. I am not sure that there is any adequate legislation, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can tell us that. He has told us that there are to be drastic Amendments to Clause 3, but he has not told us what those drastic Amendments are, and if the Bill is to have a Second Reading to-day, I think the Under-Secretary of State should take us more into his confidence as to the course which the Government propose to pursue. We are liable in this country to have too
much police regulation, too many offences created, too many acts made punishable, and the effect may be to interfere unduly with the proper liberty and the lives of the people.

Mr. SHORT rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will realise that this is an adjourned Debate on the Motion for Second Reading, and that the Under-Secretary of State has already spoken and exhausted his right. He can speak again, of course, by leave of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Mr. SHORT: I am indebted for the way in which my right hon. Friends have intervened in this Debate. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has stated in very effective terms some of the objections to this Bill, with which the House is already familiar, but let me say at once that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully realises and is conscious of the opposition, or the anxiety at any rate, in regard to Clause 3 in particular, though there is equally some criticism of Clauses 1 and 2. He realises that it is essential that, if the Bill goes through, it should go through with the assent of the House, and that it should carry with it the approval of those interests, those great charitable interests, both local and national.
The right hon. Member for Darwen suggested that we might consider whether Clause 3 should be withdrawn altogether. I am not authorised to go so far as that, but I am prepared to say this, that if the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, when it reaches Committee—and this applies to the Bill itself, but to Clause 3 in particular—we are prepared to re-draft Clause 3 in such a manner as to cover the points raised in this and the previous Debate, special consideration being given to the interests of those specifically mentioned by the right hon. Member for Darwen, those small domestic collections for the benefit of some immediate victim. We propose so to amend that Clause as to secure the full assent of the House and of the parties interested. So far as the regulations are concerned, I do not think it is seriously contended that we can embody the regulations in the
Bill, but they are vitally important, and consequently, in the drafting of these regulations, once again we will seek to draft them in broad, generous terms, with a desire to safeguard all the interests involved. I cannot say more.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say that before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, the regulations shall be available, so that we shall see them?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the Committee stage!

Mr. SHORT: I was coming to that point. My right hon. Friend is prepared to put the draft regulations upon the Table of the House. I do not think I can say more to meet the desires of the House in these matters, but I will say this as a final word, that if, when this Bill comes from the Committee and the regulations have been tabled, we cannot get the general assent of this House, my right hon. Friend realises that it will be futile to proceed with it. Under those circumstances, having regard to the very frank and definite statement that I have made with a view to meeting the wishes of the House, which are not confined to one side, I hope the House will now permit me to have a Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir H. SAMUEL: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of general assent, I presume he does not mean unanimous assent, because there may be general assent to Clauses 1 and 2 going through, and yet not quite unanimous assent.

Mr. SHORT: I think it is understood that if the House indicates that it is satisfied in a general way, and there is no reasonable opposition, the Bill should go through.

Mr. MARCH: I desire to put a question or two to the Under-Secretary of State which I have not heard mentioned before in this Debate. I am very much concerned with what goes on in the division which I have the honour to represent. For many years we have been giving a New Year's Day treat to about 30,000 children in our district. We organise it through the Mayor of the borough, and we have a house-to-house collection, by people over the age of 18, of course, in accordance with the collection regulations. Would that have to have an inquiry by
the police, or would that still be able to go on in the same way as it does now? The collections are made by committees and brought into the council and collected under the jurisdiction of the Mayor, the town clerk, or the deputy town clerk, as the case may be. Then arrangements are made in various halls for the children to meet and have entertainment and other things given to them as they go in and as they come out. That is not called a charity organisation; it is an arrangement made by the borough to give these children a treat, and it has been done for many years without any complaint in any way whatever.
Another question that I desire to put to the Under-Secretary of State is this In Poplar we have a very large body of transport workers, and we have been giving the children of those transport workers an outing every year for a number of years. We make a practice of making application to people who are engaged in the transport industry, and we are able to get fairly reasonable sums of money and to take a large number of children for a day's outing into Epping Forest or some other part of the country. We also make a collection among our own members. Wherever we cannot get at them in their branches, we get their addresses from the secretaries of our branches in the district, and make collections in that way. Is that going to be stopped by this Bill? Is it going to be encouraged, or what regulations are we going to come under for things of that description? That is what I desire to put to the Under-Secretary of State, and I hope that, if he cannot give us an answer now, we shall be able to get some definite undertaking when the Bill is in Committee.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to one aspect of the matter which has not been dealt with yet, and that is in regard to the definition Clause, which states:
'Collecting charity' means a person or body of persons making to the public any appeal for support for charitable purposes.
Probably the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that that very wide definition would include the University of Cambridge, which is a charity, and at the present time is making appeals to the
public for funds to enable it to obtain a very large grant from the Rockefeller Trust. I do not anticipate that we shall have representations from the council of any county or borough complaining of our doing so, but at the same time the University does not want to be subject to a Bill of this kind, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give us an assurance that that sort of body will be excluded, either specifically or by some general words, from the scope of the Bill. I hope we shall have some assurance on that point, because we feel rather strongly on it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the Government have not been well advised in connection with this Bill, and I want to protest against the Under-Secretary of State's action to-day. We have already had him speaking in a previous Debate, and with the permission of the House he has spoken again to-night. He has replied to one or two Members, but already two other hon. Members have asked him, courteously, in pursuance of their rights, what they think are important questions. Other Members want to do the same, and we are not going to have any reply because the Under-Secretary of State has already-spoken a second time by the indulgence of the House.

Sir K. WOOD: We will allow him to reply again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The difficulty is that there ought to have been some other person present who could reply to hon. Members without having to exercise the privilege of speaking with the indulgence of the House. Although some Members may sit for Poplar on the back bench and others may sit on the Front Bench, the Member for Poplar (Mr. March) has his rights equally, and he ought to be replied to with other hon. Members. We have been told in the country about the difficulty of the House of Commons dealing with various subjects. We are constantly met with the argument, in which there is a considerable amount of force, that when this or that question is raised in the House, the Government would like to tackle it, but that Parliamentary time forbids them getting on with such a Measure. Indeed, I read an article in a Labour paper yesterday, criticising certain Members of the House for taking up Parliamentary time.
We are told that we have no Parliamentary time for various Measures that are of the utmost urgent public importance, particularly to the common people, whom the Labour party have been specially sent here to defend. Yet this is the third occasion on which this Bill has been discussed. We have time, however, for a Tory Measure, and I ask the Under-Secretary who, before he reached the Front Bench, had a reputation for candour, what the Government defence is. I have read all the speeches on this Bill, and I cannot see where the public demand is for it. I could excuse the the Government for bringing forward a Tory Measure if there were a public demand for it. The only good thing about the Bill is that it does not apply to Scotland, and the Under-Secretary can take it from me that no Bill would be passed if it did apply. It is a Tory Measure, and I defy anybody to show the public demand for it. What Member was asked a question at the last Election about it? If one were asked, it would have been against the Bill. Here we have a Government, pressed for time and anxious to pursue other Measures, pioneering a Bill which was introduced by the Tory Home Secretary, the most reactionary Home Secretary we ever had. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote against it!"] I take instructions much nearer to me than the hon. Gentleman; I take instructions from the group that sits up here.
The big powerful charities will be protected under this Bill, and they will be well looked after, because they have a tremendous backing inside and outside this House. The Bill, however, will affect the ordinary charity and the charitable work of the trade union movement. Take a trade union operating, say, in a Tory town which is dominated by opponents of the trade union and Labour movement. There is a dispute, and men are locked out or on strike. It goes on for some time, the trade union subscriptions gradually get less, and the difficulties become intensified. The men, who always have a great deal of thought for their families, institute a door-to-door subscription, and collect in the streets. Under this Bill, if they are operating in a Tory district where they need help most, and have less representation on the local body, they will be faced with the fact that, unless they get sanction from the local body, they are committing an illegal act. That
would be an outrageous and indefensible thing, and I cannot see why a Labour Government should seek to give a power of that kind to a reactionary body. Lord Hewart has recently written a book on legislation outside Parliament, and the power of the Civil Servant and the bureaucrat overriding the democratic wishes of the House. I should have thought that the public reception which was given to that book would have been a lesson against handing powers to outside people, and yet here is the Under-Secretary for the Home Office saying that he is prepared to lay the regulations before the House, but not to put them into an Act of Parliament. I am surprised that occupants of the Front Bench, whether Tory or Labour—I have no experience of Liberals—

Mr. E. BROWN: You soon will have!

Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, it has never been my lot to see them on the Front Bench. Both sides, whenever they are on the Front Bench, talk about regulations as if there is never to be any change. It may be that the Labour Government will hold office for a considerable length of time, but we have to face the situation that, if another Home Secretary comes along, these regulations can be changed, and turned upside down without reference to the House of Commons at all. There is nothing final about them. They bind only the present occupant of the office. Under the Bill, we are handing over to a future Home Secretary the power to make the regulations harsh, vindictive and oppressive. There is no desire for the Bill at all, and it ought to be withdrawn. Why send it upstairs to a Committee, and occupy the time of Members, when it is obvious there will not be unanimity on it? It cannot be made a good Bill, and in the interest of saving time for the Government, in the interest of getting on with other more important and urgent business, the Under Secretary would be well advised to withdraw it.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I both agree and disagree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), some of whose indignation, I think, is due to the fact that this Bill does not apply to Scotland, because notoriously Scotland is the most charitable part of Great Britain. An hon. Member on the Labour Benches
raised the point of house-to-house collection. Very often a workman is injured or killed at his trade, and some of his friends go round to neighbouring houses and make a collection for the benefit of the widow and children. What will happen under this Bill? Will it be necessary for those people, who are good enough to give up their time—and it is a thankless job collecting money at any time—to go to the police station and register themselves? If they must, you will find that they will not do it, and the unfortunate widow and family will suffer in consequence.
Take another case from my own constituency. At Christmas, the taxi-drivers organise a treat for the poor children, and they take them 20 miles into the country, giving them a delightful day. In order to enable them to do that, the taxi-drivers write to all and sundry for subscriptions. Under this Bill, these taxi-drivers, who are generous in the extreme, will have to register, and they will not take the trouble. The Bill is good up to a point, because no doubt there is a certain amount of victimisation, but regulations laid down by most of the big collecting charities are sufficient to protect the public. This Bill seems to me, therefore, to be quite unnecessary and a purely departmental Measure.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: As representing the Charity Commissioners, I may assure the House that many of the contingencies put by hon. Members will never arise, and that it will be found to be a case of suffering from more evils that never arise than from those that do arise. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has not read the Bill as he ought to have done. The Bill is designed to protect two people who have never yet been spoken of in this discussion. First, we are desirous of protecting the charitable people, and, secondly, we are desirous of protecting the people who receive charity. Clause 1 makes it quite clear that nothing can be done unless representations are made by the local councils. If the hon. Member had sat on the Committee on which I have had the honour of sitting for some years—the Local Legislation Committee—he would have found that local
councils have sought to do everything they could to protect the people who are acting honestly in these charitable concerns. If the hon. Member for Gorbals will take the trouble to read the Report of the Parliamentary Committee which sat on this matter, he will find that there is reason for some protection somewhere and somehow. The real charities will be quite safe under this Bill, and, speaking for the Commission, I can say that every genuine charity will be able to go on in future, as it has done in the past, raising money for splendid purposes. As regards the trade unions, in that case the money is raised by an association well known to everybody in the area, and there can be no discussion as to whether or not the charity is for the purpose intended. All these things must be taken into account and, after all, many of our Labour friends have suffered because of the lack of regulations. Money which ought to have gone to Queen Alexandra's Fund has gone into somebody else's pockets; money which ought to have gone to the Salvation Army has gone somewhere else. The thing is that the people who give should receive some protection and that the people who are giving should also be protected. In Committee, anything that can improve the Bill will be genuinely considered, and therefore I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I am sure that in Committee the Home Secretary will give satisfaction to all the honest criticisms which have been made.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: There are one or two points which I have been specially requested by my constituents to put forward. I regret I was not present when the Under-Secretary made his statement. I am told that he has made certain promises which have met the objections of some of the hon. Members who have spoken. On the last occasion he said he had been seen by certain people representing the various charities who had expressed themselves as satisfied with the conditions he proposed to insert in the Bill during Committee. I have had a letter from a member of the Board of the British Hospitals' Association who states that they are not by any means satisfied. Can the Under-Secretary
assure me that he has received anything in the way of assent from that very influential body?
In my own town certain people are very concerned about this Bill, because it seems that whoever wishes to collect on behalf of a charity will have to receive a permit from the local police. If that be so, it is going to make things very difficult indeed. I suggest that a better way to deal with this would be to license the charity itself and to leave it to the common sense and judgment of those responsible for that charity to see that they have reputable collectors to go out on their behalf. I have in mind a working men's effort on behalf of our local hospital. It is one of the most successful we have ever had in connection with that hospital. It is called the "Biggest Ever Movement" and in the summer time they have a street carnival with a procession, a display of tradesmen's exhibits and so on. Thousands of people come into the streets to see that procession and on that occasion it is necessary to have a large number of collectors. It cannot be done unless you have a large number of collectors. The method adopted by this working men's committee is that they have a central depot and anyone willing to collect can come along and be given a sealed tin. By that means they have been able to raise a large sum of money. This plan has been in operation for many years. I saw the secretary during the week-end, and he assured me that they have collected thousands of pounds and that they have not yet lost one penny piece. There has never been anyone who has absconded with one of the tins or failed to deliver up what he has collected. To say to such a committee that they must have everyone of the collectors registered with the local police would make their task impossible. If that provision is going to be retained, I have no alternative except to vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: If the hon. Member will refer to the Bill, he will see that only on the representation of a county or borough council or a chief of police can anything be done. Nothing can be done unless the representations are made.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member does not suggest that Clause 3, to which he refers, covers the house-to-house collection.
It has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am not so sure of that.

Mr. BROWN: All I can say is that he has entirely misread the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am obliged to the hon. Member for pointing that out to me. I read the Bill very carefully, but as a layman, it is difficult to understand what is meant by the drafting of the Bill. Even so, it may happen that you may have a district where they carry on an effort like the one I have described and where you have a chief of police or a town council that do not agree with it. There you are up against the difficulty straight away. Surely the fear of the people who have asked me to put this forward that it may mean a restriction of their efforts to raise money for a charitable purpose is justified on that ground. I understand that there have been cases of fraud, but they have generally taken place in the London area where one has not the means of checking which exists in a local town. Our case is that in Grimsby we have had very little difficulty at all. I would remind the House that when we had this provision in a private Bill brought before us—I mean the Accrington Corporation Bill—the House had no hesitation in throwing out a Clause which dealt with this particular matter. If the Under-Secretary states to-day, on behalf of the Government, that there is to be a free vote on this Bill, I am sure that Members will not be so ready to vote for it as they would if it were regarded as a Government Bill. I hope he can assure me that the fears of the people whom I represent are ill-founded, because, if they are, it might remove a good deal of objection to the Bill. It appears to me from the Bill that those who are collecting will have to register. I would also like him to clear up the point about the British Hospitals Association as it is very important.

Mr. STEPHEN: There have been a series of important points put since the Under-Secretary replied, and I think the House is entitled to some further reply. There are the questions which have just been put by the hon. Member opposite to which I hope we are going to have an answer from someone. I would point
out that in my own Division in Scotland, although I know this Bill does not apply to Scotland, the present legislation in connection with collecting for charities is such that decent people anxious to help others may get into trouble. One of the leading clergymen in my Division was prosecuted during the lock-out in 1926 under the existing legislation because he assisted in collecting on behalf of the wives and children of the distressed miners. It is of importance, therefore, that we should know where we are, and I hope we shall have a reply from the Home Office to the various questions which have been put.

Mr. SHORT: I can only speak again by the leave of the House. I rose very early in the Debate to state in very plain and definite language what the Home Secretary intended and desired to do when the Bill reached the Committee Stage. I was hopeful that that statement would have satisfied those who were interested in the passing of this Measure. I have undertaken to deal with some of the points which have been put to me. For instance, I have undertaken to give special consideration to that class of case which was particularly mentioned by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I am prepared to give an equal assurance to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) and also in connection with trade unions. I hope no one will think that my right hon. Friend and myself will do anything except to assist trade unions and indeed every other type of organisation. I have been asked where this demand arose. During the lifetime of the last Government interested parties interviewed the late Home Secretary, and he set up a Departmental Committee which made a report recommending action on the lines embodied in this Bill. As far as we are concerned, we have taken the report of this Committee, drafted the Bill, and introduced it. In addition, we have assured the House that we shall make such Amendments as will remove the anxiety which has been expressed.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) referred to the British Voluntary Hospitals Association. If I understand it aright, that organisation
is not a charitable organisation, but it is an organisation which exists for the purpose of collecting statistics and figures and so forth and publishes a very interesting document. The Charity Organisation Society called together a large number of organisations, and some 121 societies were represented and some 216 members were present. Many hospitals were represented, such as Guy's Hospital, King's College Hospital, St. Bartholomew's, St. George's, St. Mary's, St. Thomas', the Seamen's Hospital Society, University College Hospital, Westminster Hospital, and the Institution of Hospital Almoners. They unanimously passed a resolution in favour of this Bill as it was introduced. I hope that statement will to some extent remove the anxiety of the non. Member for Grimsby. As he was not in the House when I made my earlier statement, I will repeat the effect of it. We are going so to amend Clause 3 as to secure the general assent of the House and at the same time secure the approval of interested bodies, whether they be local or national. An hon. Member referred to the question of Regulations. He seemed to be fearful that the Regulations drawn up by my right hon. Friend might fall into the hands of someone who was vindictive and not so kindly disposed. Let me assure him that the Home Secretary, whoever he may be, is subject to the opinion of this House. His actions can be challenged at any time, and if he is a party to any injustice in the Regulations, he can be brought to this Box to explain his action. There can be no greater safeguard. I hope that as I have gone so far to satisfy the House we may now have the Second Reading of this Measure.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the point which was raised as to whether all the young people taking part in a carnival would have to march up to the town hall for licences?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member has said that I should have a right to challenge the action of the Home Secretary; will he say whether that would be regarded as a breach of party discipline?

Mr. SHORT: In reply to the hon. Member for Grimsby, street collections are already governed by an Act passed by this House. If it is a house-to-house
collection, then under Clause 3, as it now appears, each individual person would not have to apply for a licence, but a licence would be granted to the particular society. That is the intention.

Mr. E. BROWN: That is a very important statement. This is the first time we have heard that. Is it the intention of the Government so to draft the Regulations that each individual person will not need a licence? That would make a big difference.

Mr. SHORT: I did not mean to convey that. I meant that each individual collector would require a licence, but the application for the licence would be made by the organisation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — CANALS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. B. Smith.]

Mr. MANDER: I desire to raise a question in connection with the development of the canal system of this country of which I gave notice as long ago as 4th December—though only now has the opportunity presented itself for me to bring it forward—because I had been singularly unsuccessful in extracting from the Minister of Transport any satisfactory replies to questions I had put to him. This subject merits the attention of the Government from two points of view; first of all on account of the serious neglect of one of our most important transport assets, and secondly because of the large amount of employment which would be afforded by a national scheme of canal development. In the case of many proposals submitted it becomes a question of referring them to a committee or of making inquiries; but in this case the inquiries have already been made, and we know the facts. The Royal Commission of 1906 recommended the unification of all canals in this country under a central waterways board. As the first step towards taking satisfactory action,
they recommended the appointment of a central waterways board which should take over and administer all canals. The first canals to be taken over, they said, were those constituting what is known as the "cross system." The canals that run from Birmingham and Leicester to London, Leicester and Burton to the Humber, from Wolverhampton and Birmingham to the Mersey, and from Wolverhampton and Birmingham to the Severn—they are the cross system.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Minister of Transport would say whether these proposals would need legislation?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am afraid the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission would involve legislation

Mr. MANDER: The suggestion I am going to make might require legislation, but I am not going to ask the Minister for legislation.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the suggestion of the hon. Member requires legislation then, although he is not asking for legislation, it would not be in order to discuss it on this Motion.

Mr. MANDER: In that case I will put my remarks in such a form as not to require legislation. Those were the proposals of the Royal Commission in 1906. Nothing was done, owing to the outbreak of the War. Immediately after the War a very important Departmental Committee was set up under the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, which recommended that the canals should be grouped into seven different systems under public trusts, and that gradually all canals should be absorbed in that way. Very little has been done since that time, except in connection with the River Trent, where there have been important developments, and also the formation of the Grand Union Canal, linking London and Birmingham. During this time a great deal has been done towards re-equipping the canal systems of France, Belgium and Germany, which have been brought up to date and are of great use. The difficulty in this country is that we have such a very large number of individual owners of canals, possibly something like 100, that they are not able to act together. Many of the canals cover only small distances, some acting merely
as links between one canal and another. The proprietors cannot agree on any policy, and are not in a strong enough position to raise money to carry out the work which is needed to keep the canals up to date. It is only by stimulus from outside that they can be brought into the frame of mind which would encourage them to take action.
Last summer I made a very agreeable trip through my constituency with one of my children on a canal barge. Even that small acquaintance with our canal system made me realise the enormous amount of work that requires to be done. Anyone who has looked into the matter realises that our canals need deepening and widening, that the bridges need widening and the locks need widening. If this work were undertaken it would employ a great deal of labour, not in one part of the country only, but all over the country. Then, when the canals had been brought into such a state as to make it possible for motor barges up to 100 tons to pass through them, a great deal of employment would be provided by the building of those barges. Hundreds of motor barges would be required, and each would cost something like £1,200. I would like to call the attention of the Minister to a passage from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1906:
The Commission realised more and more as their inquiry proceeded how hopeless it would be to expect anything from the waterway system of England and Wales in the future for the benefit of trade and industry if the waterways were left in the present disunited and unimproved condition. With a few notable exceptions, canals would become less and less efficient and useful, and many would swell the list, as years went on, of disused and derelict canals. This system of transport, which in foreign countries has become of great value to trade, as a result of measures of unification and improvement, would in this country be practically lost.
That was in 1906. No progress has been made since then, and our canals are in just the same or in even a worse condition. They are hopelessly neglected, and we are losing the advantage of what might be a very great national asset. As an example of the present difficulties, proper use cannot be made of the direct canal route between London and Hull because there is a link of 22 miles between Hull and Nottingham where the locks are so narrow that larger-sized barges cannot
pass through. That is the sort of thing that ought to be put right. It would be a great advantage to what it, for certain purposes a competitive and reasonably cheap form of transport. I hope that when he replies the Minister will not say—I am sure he is above that—that the matter has been carefully considered and that everything possible is being done, that this is a Government of angels—

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is only one angel in the House.

Mr. MANDER: —and that everything is in a perfectly satisfactory state, because he knows very well that there is a great deal to be done—without legislation, at all, but by voluntary action. The Government are supposed to be a Socialist Government, and here we have a proposal which is supported by all parties for the nationalisation of an industry. However, I must not develop that point because it would require legislation. If the Minister cannot give me a definite reply to-night, I would ask him not to give me a final refusal, but to take the matter back and talk it over with his officials in order to see whether he cannot do what I am going to suggest. The suggestion I put forward represents the views of many leading authorities in the canal world. Somebody has got to take the initiative in bringing these people together, to stimulate them and encourage them, and I think the Minister of Transport is eminently fitted to do it. The Government claim to be a Government of action, and I suggest that the Government should call a national conference of all who are in any way interested in our canals—whether canals or railways' or any other form of transport. When they have assembled them the Minister should point out the great importance of unification, amalgamation, and rationalisation, and he should promise that anything the Government can do by advice, assistance, and if it were in order, I will suggest by legislation; and by that means the Government could make it clear that they attached great importance to this question. This course would be in the national interest, because it would give employment to those who cannot get it at the present time; it would develop a sadly neglected asset, and would show that the Government are doing everything they can to help the canal authorities.
The Government should get those authorities together to see if they cannot draw up suitable proposals.
I make these suggestions in all seriousness, because I believe, if carried out, they would provide a great deal of work in this country, and would assist the Government to bring down those pitiless figures of unemployment which are mounting up week by week. I ask the Minister of Transport not to turn down this proposal as being unworthy of serious consideration. I am putting foward the view of many people who are deeply interested in this question, and who are most anxious that something should be done. The Government have here a great opportunity, and I hope they will rise to the occasion.

Mr. BROMLEY: I rise to say one or two words with regard to the canal system of this country. I suggest to the House that the development, on a commercial basis, of the canals of Great Britain is one of the greatest fallacies that can be held. I know that some people say that the railway companies, in the past, bought up the canals, and allowed them to become derelict. That is an old story, but it is not true. Some people believe that the canals in this country can be made a commercial success because in Europe they are said to have been successful I will give a few figures on this point. First of all, I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that canals can only be used generally for heavy traffic. Therefore they can only be useful as a commercial proposition to this nation by serving the industrial districts of Great Britain, and those districts are generally in hilly and not in flat country. To recondition some of our canals would probably cost as much as £70,000 per mile. Those who are acquainted with our mining and industrial areas, and who know the geography of the country, are aware that not only are they mostly hilly districts, but the rivers are very tortuous, shallow, and in some places interspersed with weirs.
It is true that the Manchester Ship Canal has been successful, but the reason for that is that it runs through a flat portion of the country and connects a large industrial centre with a port. Those who know the course of the Manchester
Ship Canal know that it does not touch any other important industrial district of any magnitude and it does not run through a hilly country. Then there is the Aire and Calder Navigation Canal, which has tide water right away from Hull to Goole, and flat country intervenes beyond that to Leeds. There is the Caledonian Canal, and in this instance out of 60½ miles 37½ miles run through natural lochs. Everyone who knows anything about canals must admit that to be successful they must run through flat country, and there must be near at hand good navigable rivers if those canals are to be of the slightest use. I ask the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who is very anxious to assist the development of transport and provide employment, to look at the contour of our country and compare our conditions with those existing in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland.
I would like to give a few figures. The average rise or fall per mile of the inland navigation waterways of Germany is 1.49 per mile, and it is less in Holland and Belgium. In the case of our canals, the average rise or fall is 10.8 per mile against 1.49 in the European countries which I have mentioned. In the case of the Berlin-Hamburg canal the length is 230 miles with three locks. The canal between Birmingham and the Thames has nearly as many locks as miles of waterways, and to develop this canal to accommodate 150-ton barges would cost between £50,000 to £70,000 per mile. Anyone who has dealt with the question of inland water transport knows that you must have a linking up with navigable rivers, and there must be natural waterways and not hilly country.
In Germany, out of 7,038 miles of inland navigable waterways, 5,815 miles follow natural water conditions. In France, out of 7,006 miles of navigable waterways, 4,392 exist under natural conditions. In Austria, out of 2,772 miles, 2,247 miles follow the natural courses of rivers and lakes. In Russia, out of 22,000 miles of canals, roughly 21,000 miles follow natural waterways. Those who have travelled in Russia know that you can travel from Riga to the Caucasus without going through a single tunnel on the railway. In Britain, out of 4,053 miles of canals, only 1,482 miles follow the
natural waterways. In the case of the French canals, which run mostly through fiat country and follow natural waterways, between 1912 and 1921 the traffic fell by 22 per cent., and the employés by 14,500.
I rose to give the House these figures, which I had not prepared specially for this Debate, because I did not know that this question was going to be raised; but as soon as the hon. Member got up to deal with this subject, I went to my locker, where I found these figures which I had prepared for another occasion. I put it to the House, without desiring to be presumptuous, and as one who has made a study of transport, that to talk about the development of our canals being a commercial success is absurd. Anyone who looks with a plain eye at this question will agree that the development of British canals on successful commercial lines is a great fallacy.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The recommendations in the reports which have been mentioned involve very considerable matters of legislation to which, under the Rules of the House, I am precluded from referring. So far as the Government is concerned we are ready to consider any suggestion for the proper development of the canal system of Great Britain. It is true that some of our canals are experiencing financial and economic difficulties. The fact has also to be taken into account that, for some forms of transport, the canals offer advantages and for others, disadvantages. Of course, the same argument is true of railways and road transport.
The Ministry of Transport has to deal with transport as a whole, and to see that each particular form of transport is used for the traffic which it is best calculated to carry. The Government, far from being unsympathetic in regard to applications for assistance or lacking in encouragement in regard to canal undertakings, has already intimated to the Canal Association that it is ready to consider any schemes or proposals which may be referred to the Ministry of Transport. On the 26th of July the Development Act was passed. On that very day I received a deputation from the Canal Association, and a very friendly discussion took place. I invited that Association to submit as soon
as possible any schemes which would be of economic advantage to the country, and which would tend to accelerate and stimulate employment. I undertook that any such schemes would receive sympathetic consideration from the Government.
Various proposals have been put forward. Proposals have come from the Grand Junction Canal, which is now the Grand Union Canal Company, and they have prepared a scheme for the improvement of their waterways which will permit the direct passage of barges carrying increased loads between Birmingham and the Thames. The application of that company for assistance under the Development Act is under consideration, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) may rest assured that no prejudice will be allowed to influence our consideration of that application. The Government assistance rendered available by the Development Act has also resulted in the preparation of a scheme by the South Yorkshire and Sheffield Navigation Company for the improvement of their navigation, to enable coal to be conveyed from the collieries to the coal docks on the Aire and Calder Navigation for transhipment. That scheme also is under the consideration of the Government, and the House may be sure that every friendliness will be manifested towards useful proposals of this character.
There remains the question whether, outside legislation to be promoted by the Government, it is possible for the canals to amalgamate. I think, myself, that it is desirable that the amalgamation of canals should proceed. There are complications, of course Some canals are owned by railway companies, and some are owned by companies solely concerned with canals. So far as it is possible for the people in the industry to come together and merge their interests in order that the industry as a whole may be made economically stronger, my hon. Friend may be sure that any assistance that I can render them will be forthcoming. The industry itself must however, make up its own mind. They know that there is a friendliness towards them at the Ministry of Transport, and, if my memory serves me, the deputation from the Canal Association raised the question
of amalgamations when I saw them. I told them that in my view the principle of amalgamation was desirable. I urged them to get together and work out practicable schemes, and said that, when they had got to that point they could rely on any friendly assistance that I could give consistent with the public interest. I think, however, that the first responsibility rests upon the industry itself.
Finally, there is the aspect to which I referred earlier, of co-ordination between canal transport, railway transport, road transport and possibly coastwise shipping. The Royal Commission on Transport has already received evidence from the Canal Association and from the National Council for Waterways, and they are now proceeding with the final part of their terms of reference. This deals with the very complicated and difficult question of transport co-ordination, and in their deliberations on that point they will no doubt take into account the evidence that they have received from the canals and the inland waterways; and the House may be assured that, as soon as the Report of the Commission is available, that aspect of the matter will be considered by the Government, with other aspects of transport co-ordination with which the Commission may deal. I thank the hon. Member for the way in which he has raised the matter, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) for the interesting information which he has given to the House. The House may be sure that, so far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned, there is no prejudice against canals as such, or against any other useful system of transport. I always take the view that it is my duty, as Minister of Transport, not to be Minister for any particular form of transport, but to be Minister for transport as a whole, and to pursue a policy calculated to bring into the most economical use the various forms of transport which go to make up the British transport system as a whole.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL JUDGMENT, GLASGOW (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. BUCHANAN: I owe the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland some
slight apology for detaining him here tonight, and I should like to say that I have no wish to harass him or to inflict upon him needless attendance in the House. The matter that I want to raise is one which really concerns, not so much the Under-Secretary, as the Secretary of State himself in a matter of administration. I put a question to-day to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and have been in correspondence with him, with regard to the case of a constituent of mine on the South Side of Glasgow. This man got a bicycle for his boy on credit, as is very commonly done, particularly in the West of Scotland, at the moment. He paid a few shillings in instalments, and then the bicycle was stolen or at any rate it disappeared in some way. The man was sued for debt, and a decree was given against him for the debt and the expenses. He was in receipt of Poor Law relief when the firm gave him the bicycle, and they knew it. He was unable to pay, and he has now been arrested and is in prison for three months.
We have heard about the recent sentence of 14 years—a tremendously long sentence—for gigantic swindles, but here is a man who apparently is going to be kept in gaol for the rest of his life. As long as the firm who gave him the bicycle care to make certain payments, it appears that he can be kept in prison for the rest of his life, and what for? For getting a bicycle and not returning it. He is now in prison for three months, at the Duke St. Prison, Glasgow. I see that the Secretary of State has now come into the House, and I will just repeat what I have been saying. This man got a bicycle, and the firm who let him have it knew that he was unemployed. After paying only a few shillings towards the instalments, he is sued for debt because he cannot return the bicycle or pay for it, and now he is in prison for three months for the offence of keeping the cycle. I am told that, as this is a civil action, this man can be kept in prison for ever, until he either returns the bicycle—which is now unreturnable—or pays, and he has not worked for three or four years. The firm who gave him the bicycle knew this. Here is a speculative firm, anxious to get anyone to take their wares, and to some extent palming them off on to this man. He signs for his boy, and the bicycle
disappears. Really, I think it was stolen. He cannot return it, and cannot pay, and therefore is plunged into prison, until when? I do not know; it may be for ever. I would ask the Secretary of State if this is not a terrible state of affairs. I must confess that I never knew that it could happen in Scotland until this week.

Mr. KNIGHT: What is the man committed for?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nothing, so far as I know. He is sued in the Small Debt Court, which is a Court in Scotland where you cannot sue for more than £20. The man did not appear, because he admits the debt. The decree was granted, as decrees are granted every day for debt, and then, because he cannot return the bicycle, he is arrested and plunged into prison, and the firm pay so much for his upkeep while he is in prison. I would like to ask the Secretary of State how much they pay. It appears that, as long as they keep on paying, this man can be kept in prison. He is a man of about 30, with three children, and one of the children is seriously ill at the moment.

Mr. KNIGHT: He is in prison for debt.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I never knew it to happen in Scotland before, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State how many prisoners there are in Glasgow for a similar offence. Hatry—I do not want to say a bad word about him; he has received a terrible sentence, but he has only got 14 years. This man, however, is in prison for ever, as long as the firm can pay so much a week. He has young children, one of whom is in anything but good health. I was not able to visit them myself, but my wife went to see them. He is kept in prison for taking a bicycle, for which the firm is as much responsible as he, because they knew that he was unemployed and could not pay, and yet they gave it to him. Can the Secretary of State give me the name of the firm, and can he say who is paying the weekly amount? It would be interesting to know, because they are carrying on in this fashion wholesale. They have proceeded against this man, not because they believe it to be right, but in order to put the fear of death into every other resident in the West of Scotland; they
are holding him up as a holy example of what will happen to the rest, unless they pawn their goods and chattels to pay a few shillings for stuff that has been given to them by people who know their position. I am perfectly certain that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will have every sympathy with this case, and will see that this kind of thing is not going to be carried on. There is a group of sharps—that is the only name that can be applied to them—in the West of Scotland who are palming off goods on to poor people. If that is allowed to go on, it is going to carry vindictiveness and wrong to a degree which I am sure no one in this House, and particularly on this side of the House and on the Front Bench, would care to defend.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend who has raised this matter, I have already to-day sent him the following reply:
Peter Connelly is confined in prison for failure to implement a decree of the Glasgow Sheriff Court for the delivery of a bicycle and for payment of 13s. 4d. of expenses. The bicycle was obtained on the hire purchase system. The case is a civil one, in which I have no jurisdiction to intervene.
I further added, in reply to that question, that I would take steps to let Connelly know his legal position.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The last portion of my right hon. Friend's answer was not included in the letter that I received to-day.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: It is just possible that my hon. Friend is right, because I expected to be able to give this answer across the Floor of the House, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, Scottish questions were not reached to-day, and it is just possible that the last portion of the answer I have quoted may not have been in the letter which was sent to my hon. Friend from the Office. My hon. Friend, before he raised this matter in the House to-night, came to see me, and I told him that I would look into the matter and verify the statements that he was making. I find that either the information that has been placed at the disposal of my hon. Friend or the information placed at my disposal is wrong. Connelly obtained a bicycle, of the value of £6 18s. 6d. on the hire-
purchase system, from Messrs. Young, Ltd., Stockwell Street, Glasgow, on the 25th May, 1929, at which time he was in regular employment with the Parks Department of the Glasgow Corporation. That is the first point where our information clashes, because, if I understood my hon. Friend aright, he said that this man had been idle for the last three years, and that the parties knew, when they were giving him the bicycle, that he was idle. The information that is passed on to me is that he was in regular employment with the Corporation of Glasgow. The bicycle was obtained on the hire-purchase system and Connelly signed an agreement to the effect that the value would be repaid by instalments of 2s. 6d. a week. He made the first payment of 2s. 6d. when he took possession, another Is. 6d. on 1st June, and a further 1s. 6d. on 8th June, since when nothing has been paid. In September last, Messrs. Young ascertained that Connelly, who had not replied to repeated applications for further payment, had left his employment, and on 8th November a small debt summons was delivered. The hon. Member who seems a little concerned as to what crime the man had committed will please pay attention. He failed to appear. Surely, if my hon. Friend's statement that the bicycle was stolen is true, he ought to have appeared and told the sheriff.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not so well acquainted with the sheriff's court as I am. I attend it regularly. What happens is that a man is asked if he admits the debt, and if he can return the bicycle, and if he says "No," the decree is granted automatically. Even if he said he had no bicycle to return, the decree would be automatically granted.

Mr. ADAMSON: I think my hon. Friend is under the impression that Connelly was being sued—

Mr. BUCHANAN: He has been sued for delivery. It was a delivery case, too.

Mr. ADAMSON: Surely, the least he could have done, not in the interests of Messrs. Young but of himself and of his wife and family, was to appear and to explain that the bicycle had been stolen, and I am certain the sheriff would not have granted a decree of delivery. There is another point on which our information differs. My hon. Friend says the bicycle had been stolen before Connelly was summoned to the Court. My information is that the bicycle was in his possession as late as 6th January after he had been some time in prison.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No bicycle has been in his possession since he has been in prison. It might have been before he went, but not since.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am giving the information as passed on to me, neither adding nor taking from it. I told my hon. Friend I would make a closer inquiry into the matter with the view of ascertaining whether his information or mine was a correct version of what occurred, and I think he would have been well advised to allow it to rest at that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Even admitting that the whole of ray right hon. Friend's case is right, is that sufficient to keep a man in prison for life?

Mr. ADAMSON: That is one of the points I discussed briefly with my hon. Friend. I told him I was prepared to go into the matter from the point of view of discussing whether it was not possible for a petition to be presented to the sheriff's court, or to the Supreme Court for his liberation. I think that would have been the better way if my hon. Friend could have seen his way to restrain himself from raising it in the House—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after Eight o'Clock until To-morrow.